Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:28, 20 September 2006 editWarriorScribe (talk | contribs)1,372 edits →[]: Wasn't logged in...forgot to sign← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:26, 4 January 2025 edit undoXaosflux (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators83,905 edits →Cannot draftify page: re to User:TheTechie 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
|algo = old(7d)
|counter = 367
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
--><!--


----------------------------------------------------------
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}}<!-- This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-4 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive57--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------


--><noinclude>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__

==Open tasks==
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
== ] ==

Following ] about personal attacks on ], ] was blocked for a week. There has been ongoing abuse by this user directed at ] for months - amongst other things, the allegations are that SandyGeorgia is stalking Zeraeph (in real life as well as on Misplaced Pages), using sockpuppets, and conspiring with administrators. There have been three mediation attempts, a request for checkuser which showed that the alleged sockpuppets were unconnected to SandyGeorgia, and frequent complaints to AN/I. Nobody who has looked at Zeraeph's allegations has come to the conclusion that there is any evidence for them at all, or that SandyGeorgia has done anything to provoke this. I've just extended Zeraeph's block to a month, because she was using her talk page to repeat the allegations despite being warned (by myself and ] who reviewed the initial block) that her only option now was to open an arbitration case or stop the abuse. Does anyone have any objections to a community ban? Zeraeph's are instructive. --] (]) 10:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

: i don't know how to say this politely, so I'll just say it. It's clear that editing Misplaced Pages is interacting poorly with, and perhaps aggravating, the particular issues this person has. A number of the things she or he says (particularly about being stalked for years by Misplaced Pages users, conspiracies reaching back into the past, multiple unrelated people out to "get" her) are classic symptoms of various problems that are very, very serious. Obviously, I don't think Zeraeph's editing is good for Misplaced Pages, but there's a more important issue. While normally I would say that this is the sort of thing that should go through Arbcom, I do not believe that any sort of formal proceeding involving a panel of strangers evaluating her behavior that will drag on for weeks and weeks is going to be healthy for this person. I think the most merciful thing we could do is to shut her down, and do it firmly and quickly.

: For what it's worth, I feel that way about ], too, although less strongly. ] 10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:: The incoherence of the allegations and the inability to come up with even the slightest evidence for their reality is also typical. I've had to deal with this sort of thing in real life, and you're right about the best way to deal with it. --] (]) 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::In addition to the point made by Nandesuka, the user's threatening comments are extremely serious and support this approach. ] 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been dealing with Zeraeph on a more personal level, through email after an unblock request sent to the Unblock mailing list (for the record, I advised Zeraeph to take the block as an enforced Wikibreak and to be calm when the block is over). When conversing with me, Zeraeph has alternated between being quite calm and being very frustrated with the situation. I know that Zeraeph can be very calm and reasonable when approached the right way, and I also feel that Zeraeph very honestly feels that he (or she?) is being stalked online, off-Wiki as well as on. I think if I can look at what Zeraeph can present to me, I can either provide advice on actions to take, or possibly log an RfAR on Zeraeph's behalf if the information is valid.

As such, I'd like to volunteer to be a ] (this would be my first time as a mentor), even during the block. I don't think a community ban is the answer. If you feel that Zeraeph will only cause more trouble in his talk page, the solution may be to protect the talk page so he can continue to converse with me. I don't think Zeraeph is ill-intentioned, but rather, feels that he has a valid complaint. I hope that if I can bring this off-wiki, and in private, we can deal with the situation without rubbing too many Wikipedians the wrong way. --] ] 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:I have no objections to your trying. You should also contact SandyGeorgia privately; apparently she has been receiving unwanted e-mails regarding Zeraeph, and suspects that {{user|A Kiwi}} is involved (see ], particularly the talk page). It could be (and this is pure speculation) that Zeraeph ''is'' being stalked online, but not by SandyGeorgia. My personal opinion is that this is going to be too complicated to achieve a workable on-wiki solution. Godspeed. ] 15:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, your speculation had occurred to me too. For now, I don't think I need to be contacting SandyGeorgia via email just yet. I am open to on-Wiki communication if necessary. I don't want Zeraeph to feel like I am any part of this conspiracy, and for now I am just communicating one-on-one with Zeraeph. Currently, Zeraeph is being calm and reasonable with me (though clearly frustrated with the situation), and that may change if he thinks I'm carrying on any conversations with SandyGeorgia behind is back. I would like to wait until Zeraeph presents valid evidence that it is indeed SandyGeorgia that is doing the stalking. I can promise that I will keep an open mind, examine the evidence clearly, and not do anything rash or without thought. --] ] 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) :Last month, a situation arose that should have been addressed discreetly by senior administrators and with a minimum of public discussion. Instead, it became the topic of extensive discussion on-Wiki that caused egregious harm to vulnerable editors. Although the specifics here are different, this is an extremely serious situation involving allegations of an 8-year history of stalking, legal threats, potentially delusional scenarios, and psychological issues as mentioned by Nandesuka. I strongly believe in transparency on-Wiki, but there are limits. An RfAr under these circumstances would be a horror show and should not be suggested again. We need to be able to identify and deal with the(''rare'') sensitive situations like this that need to be investigated and resolved in a highly sensitive and confidential fashion. ] 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::: I agree with Nandesuka and Newyorkbrad. Zeraeph has been asked several times as part of mediation processes to put forward a coherent, evidence-based statement about what she thinks is going on. All that comes out is the typical conspiracy theory reasoning - the absence of evidence for the conspiracy is firm proof that the conspiracy is real and working well, there are special secret things going on that the "victim" can't explain (for reasons which themselves can't be explained), things are so obvious that a request for evidence is proof of the inquirer having underhand motives for asking the question, and so on. ] is typical. I don't think Zeraeph is ill-intentioned, I think she is (literally) deluded. In any case, the abuse of SandyGeorgia has to stop, and on present form an arbitration case would just be used as a platform for further abuse, and would do Zeraeph no good at all. --] (]) 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::: Zeraeph's talk page has been protected since this morning, by the way, because she was using it to continue the behaviour for which she had been blocked. --] (]) 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::::That's why I want to bring this discussion off-Wiki, so it doesn't hurt established Wikipedians. If I act as a filter, you can be sure that anything I present is, in my opinion, valid. I won't present anything that I don't think is valid. Right now, I have some pretty good dialog with Zeraeph. If I can keep this up, maybe Zeraeph and I can discuss this calmly. I would like for Zeraeph to eventually contribute positively to Misplaced Pages, but I also don't want for this situation to cause undue stress to Wikipedians. That's why I feel carrying on private dialog with Zeraeph without the threat of a community permaban (just the current temporary block) is best. --] ] 16:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::: If you think things have got to the stage where Zeraeph is willing to use ] appropriately, feel free to unprotect it. I wouldn't be at all happy with an unblock unless there is an arbitration case which has gone "live". --] (]) 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::No, for now I think it's in Zeraeph's best interests to leave the talk page protected for now. I don't want Zeraeph to get into a situation where he (or she) will get blocked for even longer. I'm not advocating an unblock yet (indeed, when Zeraeph submitted an unblock request to the mailing list, I suggested that he take this block as an enforced Wikibreak): I'm only opposing the community ban (which is an indefinite block) as proposed here. I don't think a community bad is the answer here. --] ] 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::: ''It could be (and this is pure speculation) that Zeraeph is being stalked online, but not by SandyGeorgia.'' I believe this to be true, based on the emails I have, but apparently it "takes two to tango": she has been stalked and has allegedly been a stalker as well. (Witness the threats against me: that she is going to have authorities deal with me in real life.) I'm not convinced that any amount of conversation or mentoring will be able to convince Zeraeph that I am not the stalker, because that person has an AOL account, and I have an AOL account which I use when I am in a hotel that doesn't have another internet connection. I appreciate your efforts, but I believe the other editors have valid points about dragging this out in public considering the issues involved: I, too, have encountered situations like this and have always believed that disengaging is the only way to handle them. I understand your concerns about contacting me privately in order to preserve your role as a mentor, but someone needs to look at these e-mails, and then deal with the AOL editors who appeared in the midst of this mess, complicating it even further. I have repeatedly encouraged those people to keep the off-Wiki situation off Wiki, to no avail. I am fairly certain at this point that the only person who is going to be damaged by all of this is me: yes, the edit history is instructive (and I'm having a lovely vacation :-). It also needs to be understood that Zeraeph's attacks on me began long before she thought I was "her stalker" and before I received the emails (the person emailed me to supposedly support me because of Zeraeph's attacks), so using that now as the rationalization for her behavior doesn't hold water. Best of luck to you, ] 16:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Hmmm... okay, if you feel that I should look at this emails, send me an email at ]. I'm keeping an open mind and assuming good faith, on both sides. --] ] 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: With all due respect, someone else needs to look at them. While I understand and accept that you have an open mind and are assuming good faith, and I applaud your effort, the reality is that you don't see this as clearly as ajn, Nandesuka, many others and I do, and your role right now is as Zeraeph's advocate and mentor. First, I believe strongly in guarding the privacy of e-mail, and wouldn't want the information in these e-mails to fall into Zeraeph's hands, even unwittingly. Second, your relationship with her as a mentor is likely to be compromised if she knows you have corresponded with me: she has expressed several times that she is convinced that I can manipulate admins. Third, if the person who sent me the e-mails holds me responsible for the information falling into Zeraeph's hands, I am likely to have not one online problem out of this mess, but multiple. In short, I am the one at risk here, having done nothing to warrant this, and I need for an admin who is not Zeraeph's advocate and mentor to look at the information. Again, Zeraeph's attacks on me began long before she had any reason to involve off-Wiki disputes or to believe that I was one of the people she has had those disputes with: I merely happened to cross paths with her because of a FARC. I concur with ajn and Nandesuka's analysis of the situation: unless there is a very fast cessation of these attacks and recognition that there is no reason to believe I am one of the people Zeraeph has had off-Wiki disputes with, as soon as I'm home, I will bring the ArbCom case myself. I am the one who best knows where to find all the pieces and the dates. ] 17:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Don't forward the emails at all--contact the sender and inform him/her of Deathphoenix's offer to mentor. Let the sender decide. ] 18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::My once daily checkin: Brilliant solution, thanks. (I have never responded to the sender's emails, as I don't want to be part of the whole drama: it appears that the sender read this and has already contacted ajn.) I feel strongly that the sender needs to be protected. I also failed to make another thing clear yesterday: If the sender is to be considered a "stalker", the sender has violated no Wiki policies, and only came (apparently) to Wiki after seeing Zeraeph do to me what she has done elsewhere to others. Once I asked that I no longer receive these e-mails, they stopped. The sender has turned out to be right about everything I was warned about, so I consider the sender credible, and to be protected. ] 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Ah. I thought these emails were the harassing emails, not information sent by other people. In that case, that's fine, I'd rather not know. FWIW, I have yet to correspond with Zeraeph today, so I'm not sure how she feels about the whole thing (or even if I could be considered a mentor). All that is moot if she doesn't accept me as a mentor/advocate anyway. --] ] 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth at this point, I agree with ajn and others that this individual is not only very nasty but probably delusional, that everything reasonable that can be tried to get him or her to become a positive contributor to Misplaced Pages has been tried, failed and indeed has only made things worse, and that a community ban is both warranted and probably achievable. I ] in the most recent mediation attempt, and the response was a) a repeat of precisely the same vague and barely coherent non-evidence that I was trying to get past and b) the most vicious and potentially libelous things Zeraeph had said on Misplaced Pages to date at the time. I seriously believe that he or she should, not only be off Misplaced Pages '''forever''', but probably in jail or a mental institution as well for that response, and can't imagine how anyone could defend its author. I actually regret that my next response to Zeraeph was so mild - to be honest I skipped over most of the stalking accusations and so on the first time through. Not only were his comments about Sandy at that time completely outrageous toward her, they were rather a slap in the face to me as well. Ban with extreme prejudice. ] 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now had email from someone (not SG) offering to forward me the emails. This was my response:
: ''I think the best thing would be for you to not forward the emails to anyone at this time - this is a Misplaced Pages problem and it's regrettable that off-Misplaced Pages problems have intruded. If anyone else feels it would be useful to know what was in them, I'll be happy to act as an intermediary and make sure that no personal information is divulged.''
By "anyone else" I mean involved admins, of course. The person who emailed me stipulated that they were not to be passed directly to ]. I think that's what was stipulated - re-reading the message, it could have meant "not to be passed to anyone who is trying to help Zeraeph". Either way, I've not seen them and I don't want to (unless it's necessary). --] (]) 10:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::There's not much in the emails that anyone with eyes wide open can't figure out, or that will be news to you, ajn. The problem is, they do contain identifying information, and if I redacted that information, I couldn't forward the emails with headers. At any rate, I want this to end. It is taking as much of my time as bringing an ArbCom case would, and when I return from vacation, I will have lots of Wiki work to catch up on. I still agree with those who said an ArbCom case will not be good for Wiki or good for Zeraeph, but I have a feeling if I don't bring the case, I'll still be responding to this issue months from now. It is with some irony that I noted the comments above that Zeraeph was "frustrated". This is a situation wholly caused by her and brought upon herself by no one but her, with me as the target, so I'm not entirely sympathetic anymore to her frustration. The people who followed her to Wiki certainly complicated a situation which Wiki admins could have handled, but they followed her to Wiki because she apparently continued a pattern of abuse here she has engaged in elsewhere. I'll check in tomorrow. ] 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
::I'm fine with all of this, apart from this stigma that seems to be attached to my good faith attempts to help someone (I'd like to think that I'm mature and experienced enough not to let my attempts to help Zeraeph get in the way of doing what's best for Misplaced Pages and in not making unjustified attacks for someone). You guys are beginning to make me wish I hadn't replied to Zeraeph's request to the Unblock mailing list. --] ] 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
::: I don't think anyone doubts your good faith or integrity. What's worrying some of us is that any further attempts to give Zeraeph a chance to defend herself will be abused by her. See her recent post to wikien-l, for example. I firmly believe that the most helpful thing that could be done right now is a permanent block and no more discussion, here or offline. Engaging with someone in her state and trying to reason with her is very unlikely to help anyone. --] (]) 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:::As with ajn, I don't doubt your good faith or integrity. I doubt ''Zeraeph's'' good faith and integrity. It's very nice of you to offer to help this individual, but I believe it to be naïve; all you are likely to accomplish is to directly or indirectly give him or her a platform for further abusive actions (as happened with my own attempt to introduce some rationality into the debate), and that's not a desirable outcome no matter how good the intentions of the person doing it. Zeraeph is not above attempting the same kind of manipulation of which s/he is so quick to accuse others, and I believe that is likely what will prove to be happening here. ] 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm experienced enough to not let facetious or invalid information leak to Misplaced Pages via my own edits. What I hope to accomplish is to look at Zeraeph's information closely and either tell her that the information doesn't indicate too much or find some way of correcting the situation if it does. Since most of you believe that her information is invalid, you shouldn't be too worried, because while I genuinely want to help Zeraeph, I also want to make sure that she is either made aware that her accusations are unmerited or that, if they are, I can help her correct the situation. My dealing with her gives her a way of dealing with someone on Misplaced Pages. It does not mean that she has a meatpuppet who will blindly post anything that she writes. Currently, she is blocked from Misplaced Pages (a block that I'm not contesting), and her talk page is also protected (which, despite your offer to allow me to unprotect, remains protected). This pretty much means that the only ways she can communicate with someone on Misplaced Pages are through email, and that's where I come in. What she writes goes to me. Yes, I read her recent post to the mailing list and while it's a little troubling, the language isn't over-the-top. If it becomes as such, the listmods will likely ban her from the mailing list anyway. Which once again just leaves me to deal with her. What's the harm in that? I'm not a vexatious litigant, and I'm not ignorant either. Sometimes, just sweeping something under the rug and ignoring it isn't the answer. ajn, you must know that we don't hand out permanent blocks like candy. Community bans only become as much if someone permablocks the user and no other admin bothers to unblock. I am fine with this long block you've put her on while I try to deal with this user, but I won't stand idly by and see this user get permanently blocked while I've got some fruitful dialog with her. And this fruitful dialog is nothing that everyone else should be stressed out about either. I'm not an ignorant meatpuppet who allows any statements made by anyone cloud how he sees other users. If result of my discussions with her are that she should stop editing Misplaced Pages, then so be it. I actually suggested that plan of action in our discussions, and she may consider it if it seems she can't edit Misplaced Pages without resolving these issues, but I would like me and Zeraphael to make that determination for ourselves, not via a community ban forced upon her. --] ] 18:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:"you must know that we don't hand out permanent blocks like candy" - I'd hardly say this is candy, this user should have been blocked a while ago. Constant, unrepenting harrassment of other editors; and yes, I've had a bit of first-hand experience in the articles as well (although thankfully I was never the target but I tried to defend those who were). Please, let this one rest in peace so this user can solve his/her issues; Misplaced Pages is not a very good place to do that, in fact it usually just makes them worse; LOL!!! ] 19:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah, the candy remark bugged me too. DP, you're making it sound like all he did was swear at someone or something like that. Frankly, trivializing Zeraeph's offenses, such as calling someone an "erotomanic stalker", is rather offensive. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but ''at best'' failing to consider how that might come across backs up my above charge of naïvety. ] 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, I didn't mean it that way, and I resent the implication that I'm naive. You're entitled to your opinion, and I know you didn't mean it that way, but I find your remark at least as insulting as my inadvertent remark about candy. You'd be singing a different tune if you were to look at the nature of my discussions with Zeraeph. I am by no means trivialising what Zeraeph has done, and I am not saying that what she did was minor. What I am saying is that community banning Zeraeph will not solve these problems of which you speak. And no, I am not saying Misplaced Pages is therapy either. I am dealing with Zeraeph '''off-wiki'''. How many times do I have to say that? I am dealing with Zeraeph '''off-wiki'''. That and the fact that she is already being blocked for a month should be sufficient. I do not support a community ban. You guys are asking for a community ban, and I'm not supporting it. Simple as that. If you guys want to file an arbitration case to get her banned for a year, that's fine, go ahead and file, I have no problems with Misplaced Pages processes being followed. But if you think you can get her banned through a unanimous community ban, I'm afraid you are mistaken. --] ] 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, first of all, as I understand a community ban does not need to be unanimous. Leaving that aside, though, let me come at this from a slightly different angle. Could you please explain what positive result for Misplaced Pages you hope or expect to accomplish? Under what circumstances do you think Zeraeph should be permitted to edit again, and what benefits do you beleive will result when that happens? You can deal with Zeraeph off-wiki as much as you like, and as long as it stays off-wiki it's no real concern of mine (though I can see why Sandy might have a different view), it's the potential ON-wiki consequences that bother me. ] 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Actually, it does have to be unanimous. A community ban is simply an indefinite block that other admins can't be bothered to undo. If a single admin wants to undo an indefinite block as a result of a community ban, that community ban will not hold. To have an ''enforceable'' ban on a user requires the approval from ArbCom, Jimbo, or via an ], and unless things have changed since I last paid attention to it, ArbCom can only hand out one-year blocks on main accounts (sockpuppet accounts are another matter). As to your next question, I was hoping to tiptoe around it before, but I'll be frank. I believe that if you simply hand out a blanket block, Zaphrael will continue to find a way to make life difficult for the said parties. While I understand how harrying it is for you people, I may have found another angle with Zaphrael and how to approach her. She's already been blocked for a month, and right now, she can't really do anything on Misplaced Pages, unless she chooses to get around the block by using sockpuppets or anon IPs, but from what I see in our emails, Zaphrael is fully aware that I will not help her at all if she breaks the block on her in this fashion. I'm reviewing her information in a neutral manner, and I can have feedback that I can give her. Whatever the result, I can act appropriately. --] ] 08:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::That's actually a reasonable answer that I am a lot more comfortable with. That being the case, good luck. ] 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Thanks. As I stated below, I hope Zeraeph and I can come to an agreement. --] ] 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

''What's worrying some of us is that any further attempts to give Zeraeph a chance to defend herself will be abused by her. See her recent post to wikien-l, for example. ajn'' I do not have access to, nor have time while on vacation, to track down this post, but if she is continuing to smear my name, I hope someone has either saved that information or will forward it to me so that I will have a record of it for any potential ArbCom case. I am relieved to see that others have (finally) noted the severity of the statements Zeraeph has made against me, since I was surprised at the initial mild responses, considering how severely she has attacked me in so many places, with no foundation. Phoenix, I have no doubt at all of your good faith effort, but I do wonder if you've had experience with the particular issues and behaviors in evidence. I would also like to have an idea if there is a concensus here as to whether I should bring the Arbcom case. If some admins finally realize what I've been attempting to ignore, I will be glad to continue to ignore it if others think that is best for Wiki and she can be prevented from the continued attacks and smears, which are clearly beyond the pale of anything I've encountered on Wiki. On the other hand, if others feel I should bring the case, I'm willing. It's not fair, but it is what it is. ] 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
:Please see my response above. And yes, I have experience with these particular issues and behaviours (admittedly, not as a formally trained professional) and it is precisely because of this experience that I am approaching it this way. Think of it this way: she's already blocked for a month and her talk page is protected. If she decides to write any further emails to the mailing list that the listmods deem unacceptable, they will reject it. Any of her other activities beyond this will be outside of Misplaced Pages, and these actions may occur regardless of whether she is community banned from Misplaced Pages or not. Please, this time is mine to use (and in all of your opinions, to waste). While I understand how harrying this is for you, I believe this would be equally harrying whether I expend this effort or not. At least give me the chance to expend this effort, try to talk to Zaphrael, and have us (me and Zaphrael) both come to an agreement on something before we act on it. --] ] 08:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
::I agree that a community ban won't stop her from harassing me, and my concern is that she will use socks and proxies, and may impersonate me. I have no concerns about off-Wiki attempts or activities: I have never encountered her off-Wiki, and to put it plainly, Zeraeph thinks she knows who I am, but since she's wrong and I'm not who she thinks I am, there is no chance she can harm me in real life or off-Wiki. The only concern is on-Wiki, so I am in agreement with any approach that might work in the long-term. As I've said from the beginning, I'm willing to follow whatever approach is best for Wiki, and will hopefully keep me safe from longer-term attacks via socks, proxies, and impersonations. I just hope others will have my back, because the viciousness is alarming. ] 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Even while Zeraeph (I keep misspelling her name!) and I are engaging in useful dialog, I am aware of the possibility that she could be doing these things. If she is making any on-Wiki attacks via socks and open proxies, let me know and I will look into these cases myself or, if you are asking another admin to look into this, please let me know regardless. Misplaced Pages mentorship goes both ways: mentors are supposed to help and guide the people that they are mentoring, but they also issue warnings and blocks if the people they are mentoring continue with un-Wiki behaviour. However, sockpuppet and impersonator accounts can be blocked indefinitely, and this would not be contentious at all. If the account attacking you is a sockpuppet of Zeraeph, I would have no problem with an indef block because Zeraeph is getting around her block in an un-Wiki manner, and if the account attacking you is an impersonator of Zeraeph, she would happily have that account indef blocked because it's trying to get her punished even more. The simplest thing to do would simply be to indef block a sock or impersonator account (or temporarily block the IP) and revert any edits that those accounts make without further action. If, however, a CheckUser confirms the accounts as belonging to Zeraeph, further action would be relevant. I feel confortable saying this because I am certain that Zeraeph would not engage in sockpuppetry while we are in useful dialog, but have no problems with fixing anything that happens because of my misplaced trust. --] ] 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
::::OK, I'm comfortable that you should be allowed time to see if you can attain a more workable long-term solution, as my concern has always been how I could be safe in the long-term, knowing that short-term approaches and blocks might not help. I hope the admins who said they would bring the ArbCom case if I didn't will also give this some time. I am willing to wait. ] 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. Hopefully Zeraeph and I can come to an agreement. --] ] 12:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Torinir and ajn both mentioned they would be off-Wiki: I will leave a message on ajn's talk page. ] 23:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I've observed a little of the behaviour of Zeraeph, and would like to add that I feel great disquiet about the effect on what should be serious, professional work on WP. I'd be relieved if something could be done about it. (I should disclose that I'm a Wikifriend of Sandy's.) ] 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe myself and Justdignity made some important contributions to the Bully and Workplace Bullying topics back around May 2006 but the text kept on being immediately deleted by Zeraeph on the basis of no citations. But very little else on those topics had citations either. Zeraeph said she would be happy to reinstate my text if it had citations. But that left me at her mercy as to whether in her view i had enough citations or in the right places. She should have left my text in place with citation markers in place and I would have gladly provided citations. On her basis i hardly felt motivated to bother doing any more work. I would love to contribute more to the Bully, Workplace Bullying and NPD topics but not with Zeraeph around. --] 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please also check the huge number of revealing comments made by Zeraeph on http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bully I even created a subtopic called Zeraeph on that page back in May. The "Characteristic of Bullies subtopic" is also particularly revealing. User "Justdignity" makes the following revealing comment about Zeraeph: "I have read some of the feedback on your page and I realise Penbat and I are not the only ones to have fallen foul of your personal crusade to uphold what you think is WIki policy. While I accept Wiki policy applies to me, please will you accept that it applies to you too." --] 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

::I am the aforementioned Justdignity and have to say that my introduction to Wiki editing was short and thoroughly disenchanting thanks Zeraeph's perceived need to control (i.e. delete) user input, justified by non-sequitur commentary (i.e. nonsense). I retreated from Wiki because I had (and have) better things to do with my life than to waste my time grovelling to Zeraeph. However, I would be happy to consider completing the work I started if I knew that Zeraeph had been permanently blocked. ] 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph had a large role in the banning of Sam Vaknin. In my view Zeraeph's contributions were poisonous. Sam Vaknin is a self proclaimed narcissist but not in my view a malicious narcissist like Zeraeph. Like him or loath him he is an important authority in the understanding of narcissism. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sam_Vaknin
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Vaknin
If you strip away Zeraeph's comments you dont have too much left to damn Sam Vaknin and some of the other comments were because others were taken in by Zeraeph's poison. I hope that Sam Vaknin can be reinstated.
--] 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::Just to add that I think that some of the others putting the knife into Sam Vaknin were Zeraeph sock puppets. ] 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

About the only person not in favour of an immediate ban on Zeraeph is DeathPhoenix. Zeraeph has got form. She has a highly manipulative personality. For her, acting this way is a compulsion. Any idea of negotiating with her to reach agreement is doomed to failure. It is very naive to even try. She may play mind games and pretend to agree to a compromise solution but she would just be bluffing. It is Misplaced Pages that is much more important than the welfare of one contributor - Zeraeph. Why should we have to endure any more of her poison ? --] 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


''' THE SYNOPSIS for those who don't want to read all this'''
'''* More Wiki situations found re/Zeraeph's problem behaviors'''
'''* Zeraeph tells of 8 years grudge, showing she brought off-Wiki matters to Misplaced Pages.''' -] 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::: My first involvement in the Z-affair was very tangential. I visited Keyne's Talk page to thank him for his plea for Z to halt her disruptive posting on the Asperger Syndrome talk page. The talk page had become emotionally stressful just to read and try to keep up with the others (a steadily dwindling number).

:::Then came the last of the attempted Mediations. I saw her refusal to cooperate and to divert attention from the issue. Then here, RN and others say they have had problems, too. I decided to check out her contributions history and so far I have, in this short time, found that she has gone after a PhD psychologist by impugning the quality of his education and, seemingly, his relationship with an online mental health site. She then implied that he wasn't at all qualified to write about the topic.

:::I found situations which indicates Z brought one, perhaps more, old grudges with people in the mental disorders topics. I recognized Penbat from years ago from a bullying forum where he is a moderator and where the two of them had conflict. Penbat was easy to spot as he uses his screen name everywhere.

:::Most disturbing of anything I saw was the long page of posts I found when I went looking for the man who wrote the rebuttal to the Vaknin opinion article. ]
:::This was the ending where she revealed that she has been personally upset with Sam for many years. On that page, many of her posts indicate her problems with him were of long duration before she came to Misplaced Pages. However, when I went hunting, her posts to Samvak started only in February of 2006, and she showed no sign of knowing him at all and he did not recognize her until later.
----
:Under the SubTopic entitled '''TIMEOUT!!!!''' by Ta bu shi da yu

''Folks, my article was never to whale on Sam! I responded to his points, and asked for his response and he only responded with an ad hominem attack. Please, we should not be doing the same in kind. I realise he's frustrating, but it gets us nowhere to have a go at him. Please, some kindness and patience for this critic of Misplaced Pages! He's absolutely no threat to us, and even if he was, we should not be too harsh on him anyway. - '''Ta bu shi da yu''' 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)''

::You wouldn't say that if you knew him.
::'''''The guy has spent almost 8 years cold-bloodedly, deliberately playing cruel little games with the heads of as many extremelly vulnerable, damaged people as he can rope in, and determinedly crushing anyone he percieves as "getting in his way"''''', including, but not limited to, the kind of tactics you have seen around "The Six Sins of the Misplaced Pages".
::To Sam Vaknin "kindness" and "patience" are just contemptable weaknesses in others to be exploited. So don't waste them on him.
::Truth and fairness are the best he deserves. --'''Zeraeph''' 16:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

:::''Maybe so, but this is not the forum for such matters. Blogs and places like Kuro5hin are best for such matters. - '''Ta bu shi da yu''' 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)''

::::Maybe so, but I don't think this is the place to request "kindness and patience" for someone like that under circumstances where to extend either would be to leave oneself open to abuse.
::::Still it might be best if discussion of the man himself, as opposed to the specific article in question, were to move over to Talk:Sam Vaknin? --'''Zeraeph''' 16:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
----
-] 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:: It looks to me like Sam Vaknin got badly wound up by Zeraeph, ref his "The Six Sins of the Misplaced Pages" for example. He presumably equated Misplaced Pages with Zeraeph as Misplaced Pages in general seemed to have sided with Zeraeph in preferance to himself. Far from being the monster that Zeraeph portrays him as, he still runs two popular support groups for victims of narcissists and commands the respect of many victims. --] 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


=== Update ===

This sub-topic seems to have gone quiet all of a sudden. --] 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Slowed a week ago. Deathphoenix wanted time for Zeraeph, see if she could ignore cetain people. He said she'd promised not to slip around in stocking feet. on that note, I got wiki mail from someone who may or may not be the someone others have mentioned. The party says they have had two socks in sight for the past week and 3 IP addresses to check against. Something about how it won't be sent unless it's wanted. So, for what it's worth, I'll leave that bit without further ado. Hey, The Amazing Race begins again tonight! CBS -] 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

== Research request ==

'''Please do not delete this post without discussion with ].'''

Hello I'm a member of the research team at (formerly known as Xerox PARC) interested in understanding conflict in Misplaced Pages. A number of other admins and ] (a member of the Wiki Research community) have supported our research, and we hope that you also will support our endeavor. We are currently running a survey to understand how administrators characterize conflict. If you would like to help in our research on Misplaced Pages please complete the survey at the link below:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=272072498578
Please note that we are committed to providing quality research to the Misplaced Pages community. The results of the survey will be incorporated into an academic paper that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed conference this fall (likely the ), and will be freely available to any interested parties. A link to this publication will be posted on my ]. You can look at the ] of our first survey in which we targeted members of the Mediation Cabal to get an idea of the kinds of questions we are interested in.
We are not journalists or spammers but an established research institution with a strong track record of high-quality publications. Here are links to find out more about our team (the ) and our , including studies on . Thank you for your help! ] 17:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

: '''Please do not remove this request'''. It is the third bloody time we've had to put it up, and I'm tired of people massively mis-interpreting Policy. Do not attempt become the third sysop to endure my wrath over this. ;-)
: In as much as I have the authority so to do (which is not great), I welcome the research efforts from PARC. Please take this as sufficient to quell any doubts you might have about the authenticity of the request.
: ] ], Wikimedia CRO. 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

::Any chance that a bot can be created to automatically send a copy of the complteted research to our (interested users) talk pages? Just a thought. ] 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

::if they have done this before why are they not hoasting on thier own servers and why are they not trying to contact people directly rather than useing theier current setup which gives them no control over who fills it in. It also asks about articles and then provides a list that includes a portal. Result obtained are likely to be largely useless.] 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

:::This is a valid point: How are the respondents being vetted? Is there a possiblity of creating a seperate page in userspace to ask these questions without clogging up the noticeboard? ] 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Just to respond to the above questions: Geni, we are using SurveyMonkey to host the survey, which is a common tool used in the research community. The articles/portals are selected using an algorithm which we will discuss more in the paper. RVTA, originally we targeted a randomly selected (by name) group of admins, but people told us to post here instead of to individual user pages. If the WP community has a better idea for a method for researchers to interact with the community, we'd definitely be interested in hearing it. Thanks! ] 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::If you use your own domain to host serveys people are going to tend to be less paranoid.] 21:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A problem I see is that there is no way to ensure you are getting answers from administrators and editors, or trolls and passers-by. Anyone can do the survey and anyone can fill in whatever username they wish to impersonate. A better way might be to send e-mail messages with unique passwords. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

: Don't encourage them to spam Misplaced Pages users. That will just get Misplaced Pages put on blocklists. --] 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I just took the survey and the research methodology seems to be at best lacking. The articles one was asked to look at are clearly not randomly selected but the procedure they were selected by doesn't seem at all clear either. There were other issues I had but I don't want to taint the study by going into them now. ] 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

==new topic: can we have a more informative rollback choice?==
I assume most of us revert vandalism using the rollback choice but you notice it leaves no explanation of the reason. There are a few other categories of "rollback on sight", such as removing linkspam or removing personal info or removing personal attack or removing edit by banned person. I am sure a few others might occur to people. Is anyone else in favor of asking the developers for a choice of, say, 5 or 6 rollback buttons that function like the present one but put a brief explanatory phrase in the edit summary? ] 20:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:If it's anything other than vandalism, rollback isn't appropriate. I'm sure we've all broken that rule now and again, but to be honest, it's generally a good one. If you need to undo an edit for any other reason than vandalism, then you need to manually explain whay you're doing. Doing so will also help you think twice about reverting in the first place. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


A related question, what can be done for admins who continuously use rollback for reverts during edit disputes, and other cases where no obvious vandalism/link spam etc has occurred? I have tried politely requesting them in such cases, but most of the time, the offending admin simply ignores and does it again and again. --] 20:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:I would suggest not doing anything, since there is nothing wrong with doing so. ]|] 20:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::There is of course problems in abusing admin features in edit disputes. According to ], ''Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please revert manually with an appropriate edit summary.''. --] 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
:::If an admin repeatedly uses the rollback feature to get the upper hand in an edit war they should first be reported for violating 3RR or the spirit of the rule if appropriate, then send to arbcom if they keep ignoring requests not to. - ]|] 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I cannot see how using rollback is any different from leaving a blank or uninformative edit summary. 3RR is already taken care of. There is already guidance to not describe a good-faith edit as vandalism. Misusing one's position as an admin is understood to be wrong no matter what mechanism is used. How is using the rollback button worse than leaving as a summary "restored NPOV"? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not sure if the interface clutter is worth the trouble. Rollback is, in the vast majority of cases, used where the reason for its use is obvious. If an editor is confused or perplexed about why an admin used rollback in a particular circumstance, a polite talk page request usually clears matters right up. For admins (or other editors, for that matter) who would like more specific or more customizable rollback buttons, my understanding is that there are any number of homebrew scripts available for download these days. ](]) 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::It shouldn't happen in the first place, and having to talk to the admin first is quite a waste of time. I had a minor fight on a ] page - I added something and the admin reverted. I think we both wasted more time arguing about it on his talk page than if he had just spent '''20 seconds''' explaining why he didn't think it was funny. ] 19:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, we don't do that with edit wars, etc. So where can I find a "homebrew script" that would let me make a small menu of edit summaries for rollback? ] 02:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

:Admin rollback has always been for vandalism only. If admins are making an edit decision, they should do it manually like everyone else, and leave an edit summary to explain the edit (which rollback can't do). This is for good communication with other editors. Past discussions about this feature have been unambiguous. ] 07:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
::All points agreed as above. This is about how, not when and whether. I am suggesting/requesting a measure to increase ease and detail of communication for those rollbacks that do not warrant a talk page discussion but might not look like obvious vandalism. I am one of those editors who feel a much stronger conversation obligation to named users with accounts than to anon IPs but would like to leave a more informative message than the automatic "reverted". Please don't repeat the points already stipulated, thanks. ] 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

== Patterns merely perceived?: User name plus behavior = small freak-out ==

Is this at ''all'' normal? A series of user names, most of the form "name <space> name", all editing a single article, with very small edits quite quickly, over a short period of time but not overlapping. Is this someone trying to 'establish' a set of users for ... 'later'?

*05:09, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
*05:05, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
*05:02, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
*04:59, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
*04:53, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
*04:31, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)

Check out the of ]. (I'm tempted to revert the whole lot of changes, as several are just bad, but I'm spooked.)

I scanned down the list of new accounts for about 1.5 hours' worth, and except for
*04:25, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
none else fit the (perceived?) pattern.

I know that people will often perceive a pattern in "white noise", but this is too strange for me. ] 05:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:I'd say there's something up. That history page is scary! Looking at (there are over 50 edits in between) there seem to be no substantial changes (and a few copyediting errors, which I am going to go fix). It seems like someone trying to build up an edit count on a few socks. I'm no expert or admin though, but that's what I think. ]] 06:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
*Yeah, that looks like a pattern all right. - ]|] 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
**Bruce seems to be unconnected to the others, and is presumably blisfully ignorant that his name is being dragged through the mud. I've dropped a handrolled "please don't" message on each of the others. Probably just someone experimenting. We will see. Regards, ] 09:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I hope I didn't give that impression, sorry if I did. ] was not in the first list, and I was _trying_ to say he wasn't a possible problem, but apparently failed. No, I was ''not'' including ] in my concerns. ] 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::: I apologise. I didn't think that you meant that Bruce was a problem, only that you were just raising a perfectly valid concern that there might be a connection. But I'm discomforted that Bruce was included in a check user request . That's not because it wasn't done in good faith - it was. Just that it's rough on him to show up and accidentally be caught in a dragnet. I'm uncomfortable that we're discussing him and he doesn't (presumably) know it. But I don't what to do about it - leave a message on his page saying "By the way Bruce, just to let you know, we're watching you and we're know you're innocent?" That's wierd too. Regards, ] 22:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
*I only included him, because he appears (or appeared) to be connected by naming and edit habits. If he's innocent I'm sorry he got dragged in here, but I don't see anything implicitly wrong with innocents being included in RFCU when there's reason to believe there's a connection. The persons performing such checks will not reveal any confidential information, so information he is not related can only be good for him. - ]|] 08:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== myg0t ==

{{article|myg0t}} has been deleted, reviewed, deletion endorsed, earth salted, reviewed again, reviewed again. It's pretty unliekly that we'll see an article at that location in the near future. The ] is, of course, the usual trollfest. I suggest we delete it, as a talk page of a deleted article which is unlikely to play any productive part in a deletion review in the foreseeable future. What say? <b>]</b> 12:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

: Deleted. ] 12:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::And earth salted. Technically talk pages aren't speediable if they "contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere", but I don't even see the use of that generally, and certainly none of the trolling on ] is any use to anyone. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Do you think the same approach could be applied to ]? -- ] 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

] is also flaring up again after another admin deleted the talk page a few months ago. ] 19:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)



== Inappropriate username ==

]
It's probably already blocked, but I thought someone ought to take a look at this one...
—<font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="2f690d">]</font><font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="a81e51">]</font><font color="125181">]</font> 00:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:I think this one might need a block too (presumably the same user) ] —<font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="2f690d">]</font><font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="a81e51">]</font><font color="125181">]</font> 00:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
::Another: I don't know if I should keep a running list of these: ]
Please use ] next time, and please simplfy your sig. ]] 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Apologies, I'm still rather new, so I'm not really familiar with the processes behind this. May I ask how to simply my signature? I won't sign with the automatic one, then, now, until I figure it out. --]
These were all blocked previously. You can check yourself before posting to WP:AIV. One of the easy ways is to go to the user's contributions and at the top the page it will list "For <user name> (Talk | block | Block log | Logs)". Click on the "Block log". --] 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:Okay, thank you very much...so sorry for the trouble I caused - it was purely newbie blunders, since I've never ventured near this part of Misplaced Pages before *sweatdrop* And Thank you to Yanksox for letting me know about my signature...I was genuinely unaware that it was as long as it was or as disruptive...I hope this one is a bit better? If not, I can prune it down again. —<font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="2f690d">]</font><font color="8100b4">]</font> 05:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::It's good, lots of users have a green-colored letter in their signature to signify Esperenza. ] 08:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

== Phishing from wiki@wikimedia.org ? ==

I received this strange e-mail:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 24.121.44.189) requested that
we send you a new Misplaced Pages login password for en.wikipedia.org.
The password for user "Janke" is now "XXXXXX". You should log in
and change your password now. If someone else made this request
or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to
change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

What's going on here? The IP above is not even close to mine! Is someone else trying to get my logon password? Greetings, --] | ] 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

: It's someone else asking for a password reminder, it sends that to your registered and confirmed email address, as the message you got says "If someone else made this request ... you may ignore this message and continue using your old password". As to the other persons motivation, as an IP that user only has one edit so I can see no obvious connection. Beyond that it's guessing, could be someone thinking they could get your password (though that seems unlikely), could be someone who can't remember their own account details etc. --] 06:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:: Only one edit, yes, but probably from an anon IP that is changing with each access (such as AOL)? That edit was certainly not a newbie edit... --] | ] 06:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:::For a brute force attack, requesting a new password increases the size of your target, because there are now two passwords that will work. However, I tend to ignore such emails - six random numbers and letters are fairly hard to crack (2 billion variants). I suspect there are admins here who receive several of these every week, especially those with accounts on several Wikimedia projects. - ] (] • ]) 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
::::OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm a little wiser now... ;-) --] | ] 12:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I've already had a few of these. I don't know what the wiki source code is like, but depending upon how these random passwords are generated there may well be a vulnerability here that someone is trying to exploit - I can certainly think of some hypotheticals. ] 00:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:The most probable explanation is that the person attempted to register an account with your name. This failing, they supposed that they might have already created it, and had a reminder mail sent. When this didn't work they gave up. ] 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::POssibly, but several of us had at least half a dozen of these a while back all generated by the same IP address - clearly up to mischief. Alas I don't remember the IP, but I blocked it. --] 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
This article is blank. Somebody has vandalized it. I don't know if that's proper place to put such an information, but I don't know where else do it. ] 06:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:Fixed. Next time you can fix it yourself by going back into the page history, editing the last good version, and saving it. That overwrites the vandalised copy. Regards, ] 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

'''NOTE:''' Please note that IP 65.105.179.195 appears to be on a blanking-vandalizing spree on Israel subjects, and needs to be blocked immediately. --] | ] 07:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
*Seems to have stopped vandalising yesterday. -]|] 07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== Macedonia, yet again... ==

At ], Niko Silver refuses to acknowledge that the neutral form in use on Misplaced Pages is "Republic of Macedonia", even in articles on or related to the European Union. Or am I wrong? &mdash;]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:I dunno - the ] says that "Republic of Macedonia" is the "official internal name" and that "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the "official international name". --] 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
*If it's worth anything. They're referred to as ] in Eurovision song contests. But I don't see why either would be more neutral than the other. Removing Yugoslavia from the name may come across as hiding info that is significantly important. - ]|] 12:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
::As far as I was aware, RoM would prefer "Macedonia", Greece would prefer "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and most Misplaced Pages pages use "Republic of Macedonia" as a neutral compromise. The question is whether this should apply to all pages, or only to some; by Niko Silver's arguments, ] should be at ], however... <tt>;p</tt> &mdash;]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Ummm, no. That is not the case. Greece would prefer "Republic of ]" or "Slavomacedonia" or "Vardar Macedonia". The country itself would prefer "Republic of Macedonia". The compromise solution in the UN was ]. So, this is not Greek POV, it is int'l POV, as described in featured article ]. EU calls that country FYROM, and the country itself addresses officially the EU as FYROM. Not as RoM (and definitely not as "Slavomacedonia"). Interested parties kindly contribute to this discussion in the ]. ] 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Maybe 10 years ago. - ] ] 02:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

== Influx of users using personal experience over verifiable sources ==

Apparently, ] has invited his friends (at least six of them) to oppose the deletion of his self-bio, filed at ]. Most of them have only a single contribution, which is to that AfD (which Lentower created and contributed to). At least one, ], has now started to contribute to other articles, with a tendency to refer to his own experience rather than verifiable sources. I'm busy, can someone keep an eye on these users? Thanks. - ] (] • ]) 10:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
: Fair enough, but I not that ] gave a reasonable reference for the change, from the subject's own website no less, and a credible reason why the original date was wrong. <b>]</b> 13:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
::Subjects' own websites are generally not considered ]. ]|] 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::: That is not always true. It really depends on who the subject is and what is being referenced. ] 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
::: Subjects' own websotes ''are'' generally reliable sources for facts regarding the subject (e.g. you can cite a company website for numbers of employees, or a person's website for their date of birth). I can't say I've formed a firm view on this particular edit, but it looks OK on the surface. <b>]</b> 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: The Arbitration Committee has ruled in the past that it's inappropriate for users to add links to their own websites. --] ] 23:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I don't think it's as simple as "never add a link to your own Web site". Doing so is a bad idea upwards of 90% of the time, sure, but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule against it and it sounds like this might reasonably fall into the other <10%. ] 07:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== Sockpuppet of banned user: Please block ==

]'s latest sockpuppet, ], has been vandalizing ] with a Pnatt-like motive and results. He also appears to be talking to himself on the talk page, but that is not necessarily true. -- <font color=blue>]<small> ]<small> ]<small> ]</small></small></small></font> 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

==]==
I have indefinitely blocked {{user|LordByronKing}} for repeatedly inserting his name and nn books into articles all over Misplaced Pages. He has yet to respond to any messages on his Talk page. I have indicated that I will entertain an unblock request if he pledges to stop the spamming. ]|] 18:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

==Temporary injunction in the ]==

For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned, by an uninvolved administrator, from ] or related pages for disruptive edits.

Affected users are listed in the case, and have all been notified. The affected articles (and two templates) have all been labelled with appropriate notices.

For the Arbitration Committee. --] 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] Accused of violating ] protocol ==

What is going on ? I was visiting with DreamGuy when I found the ] matter. Anything to this matter ?] 18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:According to this ], ] found it likely that ] is a sockpuppet of DreamGuy. Both disappeared in the next few days; DG has only made a few edits.--] ]/] 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
::Just got home from the pub so excuse my bad grammar. This has been discussed before. Nothing much more to add bar the info above but the evidence is overwhelming. Both had similar edit times, had similar edit summaries, edited the same articles and the account was used to voilate the 3RR rule, e.g. Victrix would rv 3 times then DG would step in and vise versa. ] 23:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

'''Loads''' of vandalism in the last hour, a second ip is just starting to get to work. Needs sprotecting really. Probably at least half my fault because I posted on the message boards at the site saying that we really needed to get a decent page up that was proportionate to the size of the site. Current vandalistic users on wikipedia are banned from the site too. ] 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:Semi-protected, hopefully in a reasonably non-vandalised state. The article does need some serious work though. ] 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== Favouring admins involved in 3RR violations? ==

I was going to drop this matter, but I am still uneasy about it and decided to interrupt my wikibreak to get at least get some community comments on the matter. ], an admin has recently engaged in revert war with {{IPuser|154.20.161.143}} with a total of 6 reverts over two days (including 4 reverts within 24 hours) on {{article|Paranthropus}} within 24 hours labelling the revers as ''vandalism''. However, the anon editor was trying to discuss this matter on the talk page, and in a very civil way. The dispute was over the accuracy of the article and the reliability of the article sources. The anon user reported the UtherSRG to ] where he was himself blocked by ] for 3RR violation and UtherSRG was left without as much as a note on his talk page.

I came into this incident when {{IPuser|154.20.161.143}} put up an unblock request describing the matter. I found his 3RR report, reviewed it, and not realising that ] was an administrator, I have blocked him for 24 hours and put a note on his talk page informing him of the block. A couple of seconds later, on the admin channel on IRC, I was informed that I had just blocked an admin. After 10 minutes of discussion on IRC, ] decided that because a lot of his reverts were reverting {{tl|unreferenced}} tags on a "referenced" article he could be unblocked.

'''''However''''', at the beginning of the revert war, there were '''''absolutely 0''''' references in the article (see the version at the time of ), later on the anon explained his concerns on the talk page, put in an unreferenced tag, and a disputed assertion tag on one of the statements, this again was reverted as vandalism using . The <s>admin</s> anon reverted the revert asking for discussion, this was , more links were added by the UtherSRG, the anon expressed futher very legitimate concerns about the reliability of the online sources and about neutrality of the article and put in POV and unreferenced tags but was again reverted multiple times. UtherSRG has made only two small comments on the talk page, not even bothering to address the last detailed statement describing his rationale for ''each tag'' - instead of addressing it 4 reverts were made, including 3 admin rollbacks.

I am not happy that an admin was favoured in this case for what clearly looks to me like a revert war NOT vandalism reversion as the edit summaries suggest. And I am not happy that admins can run around using their admin rollbacks in revert wars without decent attempts at discussion. I don't agree with the technicality used to lift the block on UtherSRG, that was pointed out to me on IRC - i.e. that the {{tk|unreferenced}} tags are meant to refer to articles with absolutely 0 references. An anon has no way of knowing all the tags available on wikipedia, otherwise he could have used something more like: {{tl|Primarysources}}, which even I did not know of until just a couple of minutes ago! And in any case these are not the only tags that were reverted. For me it looks like that UtherSRG, who got out of this unscathed, is more at fault than the anon who was blocked for "3RR violation and disruption" while actually trying to discuss the matter and being the one who reported the incident in the first place!

So I would like to know what everyone else thinks on this matter.--] 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:<small>I have found one place where I write "the admin" instead of "the anon" so I went back and replaced the instances where I referred to UtherSRG as "the admin" with his name. Nothing else is changed--] 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)</small>

:I didn't mark any of the reverts as vandalism. I often use the as it is very convenient and gives an automatic and very neutral edit summary. My first rollback was followed immediately by an edit where I add a reference, countering the anon's complaint. Etc. If the anon has relevant information to add to the article they should do so instead of complaining at the state of the artcle and slapping tags on it. I didn't add the majority of the information, but I helped clean up the edits of several other, well informed, editors. Perhaps my biggest offense is ], where I have little patience for non-productive armchair quarterbacking. The anon showed little interest in editing, only in complaining that the article didn't reflect the POV they felt was more valid. - ] ] 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::] and the ] arbitration case says to '''never''' use the rollback for any old reason, for '''only''' vandalism. Rollback summaries are essentailly blank ones: vandalism is the only self-explanatory reason. Otherwise it should be explained. ] 07:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:::This I did not know. I do not (and can not) keep up to date on all of the Wiki rules and policies. There are way too many and they change way too frequently to keep current on. Taht said, the edit summary of the rollback '''must''' be changed to indicate it is reverting vandalism if, indeed, that is the current policy. Until the edit summary matches the policy and is changed from its neutral wording to one that states it is revertin vandalism, then the policy is flawed and should be disregarded as it doesn't match the effect of the software. - ] ] 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So UtherSRG was unnblocked because he technically didn't break the 3RR since he only reverted the {{tl|POV}} tag twice, and removed the {{tl|unreferenced}} tag. But if that is so, then I technically did not break 3RR either. How can I be at fault but not him?

I was not aware that adding external links was considered citing sources. On the Paranthropus talk page I explained why I had added the unreferenced tag. If it is true that external links are considered references, that could have been explained to me on the talk page and I would not have re-added the same tag.

:''"If the anon has relevant information to add to the article they should do so instead of complaining at the state of the artcle and slapping tags on it. I didn't add the majority of the information, but I helped clean up the edits of several other, well informed, editors. Perhaps my biggest offense is WP:BITE, where I have little patience for non-productive armchair quarterbacking. The anon showed little interest in editing, only in complaining that the article didn't reflect the POV they felt was more valid. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2006"''

I find this statement offensive and erroneous. In the Parathropus talk page I clearly said:'' "There is no consensus in the scientific community that the species A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus belong in the genus Paranthropus. They are commonly referred to as A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus in current peer reviewed articles and books. To provide a neutral viewpoint, both models of classification systems should be described in detail. For these reasons I have added a disputed tag. Please do not remove until article is updated to be NPOV."'' and ''"What I am suggesting is that BOTH models of classification systems are mentioned and described in detail. For these reasons, I have added a POV tag. Please do not remove the tag until both classification systems are given the equal attention which they deserve"'' I was not trying to promote my own POV as I do not have an opinion on which genus the three species belong to. All I was attempting to do by adding the tags was trying to bring attention to the false statement that there is a consensus on that subject in the scientific community. I even provided references on the talk page to show that it was not my personal point of view, but that of textbooks. There are many different ways to contribute to wikipedia, just because I don't make major changes to the article does not mean my edits should be discounted. IMO, alerting others that an article is POV is productive editing (if not, why even have the tags). I would also like to note I tried to continue the discussion on the talk page with UtherSRG, but he responded by saying "(''rv I tked, we disagreed, i have nothing left to say.'')" which I found to be very discourteous. ] 03:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you state the case briefly? If the point is that someone who has a sysop bit was given false favor in an edit warring situation, then this is a serious matter. Nobody should edit war. Admins especially should not edit war. --] 03:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:'''Very brief summary''' edit war on {{article|Paranthropus}} between anon ] and admin ]. On anon's report to ] the anon was blocked, UtherSRG was not blocked. I blocked UtherSRG when responding to anon's unblock request,without realising he was an admin, after IRC discussion someone else unblocked him on what seems to be a technicality over tag definitions to me. Either way, even 3RR was technically not violated, they were both revert warring.--]
::I don't understand what you mean here or what Glen S means in the unblock summary. I count 5 reverts by UtherSRG within 24 hours. It makes no difference that both were revert warring or that he was removing a reference tag on an ostensibly referenced article. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 05:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Well the {{tl|unreferenced}} tag does say that the article cites ''no'' sources, since the article has no sources putting in this tag is techincally wrong, that is what ] had meant at least. Though I don't really see this as a valid excuse for reverting.--] 08:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== Remove ] whitespace ==

As I'm not trusted with admin tools, could someone go and remove the excess whitespace at ]. It's because it has now been edited with a hidden comment warning, telling users to be more considerate to outside users to stop people mailing ] and complaining. I'm not too happy that there's any message there at all as I mentioned in the talk page, but before anything is done about the message, please remove the whitespace. - ]]] 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:I've reverted the commented warning for now, because, as I said in my edit summary, this is a template which people subst without ever reading the full text contained in the template. And, frankly I couldn't care less if spammers are whining about their spam being deleted. That I didn't say in the edit summary. I suggest further discussion is taken to ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:I'm of the opinion that such a warning should be manually inserted in situations where civility actually becomes a problem. The majority of AFD pages consist of drive-by, pile-on "votes" in one direction or another with very little accompanying commentary. However a few of them actually evolve into meaningful, or possibly inflammatory, discussion, and may require a warning shot across the bow. Perhaps as an ironic counterpoint to {{]}}, we need a {{]}} template. Thoughts? —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 21:19, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)

== Deleted Misplaced Pages Page ==

if you search for Jeffree Star the page is deleted and i don't realise why this would be so.
I'm not that good with the user tools so could someone put the page back on or at least start it up?
Thank's :] <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

:The page ] was deleted because it does not assert the ] of its subject. If he became notable he'll get an article until then this was correctly deleted and won't be recreated. Please read ] and ] for details on the specific notability guidelines that apply. Thanks, ] 03:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
::Just a note. The article has been deleted now by ''''''six'''''' different admins. ]|] 03:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

== Request for Unblock ==

I take my rejection straight to ] on this so called "community ban." Since it is through the community users rather than the formal committee i feel that RFC is sufficient rather than Arb-comm. Please let me come back ] 06:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:<s>Hi Le Wiki Brah. Perhaps it would be a better idea to speak to Tony Sidaway first as opposed to filing an RfC? </s>-- ] 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
::Silly me, I didn't see the thread above -- ] 12:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== Code bug ==

Sigh hope I'm in the right place. Bug in the page code for the entry on DDT. Box content on right-hand side not able to appear.
*I'm afraid this is the wrong place. Try ]. = ]|] 11:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== Block to review ==

I have blocked ] for the 3RR violation on ] - 5 reverts in two hours, user was warned. Posting here since I was involved in the dispute] 11:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:Generally speaking, don't block users you're in a dispute with. If they need a block, get another admin involved. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' '']'' 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with Werdna on this matter; I also agree with the need for the 3RR block. I would recommend allowing the block to stand, but definitely don't do it again. ] * ] 12:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

] made an edit to add ] to the article ]. The following edits were all concerned with adding and removing this category. There were 5 reverts to delete it. He only made 4 reverts to reinstate it (the first of his 5 edits was not a revert). His first edit was at 10.28. The first and second reverts against him were at 10.32 and 10.36 by ]. The third was at 10.43 by ]. The fourth at <s>11.47</s> 10.47 by Irpen (his 3rd revert) and the fifth by Alex Bakharev (his 2nd revert) at 11.16.

This was an edit war which all three users engaged in. As it was two editors acting against one, 133.41.4.46 would inevitably fall foul of 3RR first. It does not speak well of any of the editors involved, particularly an admin, especially when the latter blocked his opponent and made his preferred edit 2 minutes later.

133.41.4.46 made his 3rd rv at 10.46 and was warned for 3RR a minute later. However, at 10.43 the 3rd rv had actually been made against him (Bakharev's 1st rv, following 2 by Irpen).

At 10.57, 133.41.4.46 had left a justification for his edit on Bakharev's talk page. There was no response to this and at 11.07, Irpen made his 3rd rv and the 4th in total against 133.41.4.46., who rv 3 minutes later and was blocked. Then Bakharev made his 2nd rv and the 5th in total against 133.41.4.46.

The net effect is that an editing decision has been achieved by force rather than argument, and that an adroit use of the rules has been employed to achieve this. It is not in wiki's interest to tolerate such practice. Two users acting in concert have been as guilty in spirit, if not the strict letter of the law, as the single user.

I commend Bhakarev for bringing this to AN, but he cannot expect to receive a "get out of jail free" card for doing so. I propose that all three editors involved need to back off and cool down, and if Bhakarev considers that a block is needed to do this, then he and Irpen should also receive one; or he may decide that the block on 133.41.4.46 was unjustified in the circumstances and remove it, in order to <s>respond to</s> continue the dialogue which 133.41.4.46 initiated on his talk page.<s> and which he has so far ignored.</s> <small>See clarification below</small>

] 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:Clarification: 133.41.4.46 made the post initiating dialogue at 10.57. 133.41.4.46's final edit was at 11.10. Bhakarev responded to 133.41.4.46's post at 11.12 and then immediately blocked 133.41.4.46 at 11.14 (at which time Irpen also responded to the post).
:] 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation needs some more responses to it. ] 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


::The edits to ] were repeats of the edits of ] (see e.g. ) so all the five edits are reverts. The edit were intensively discussed by Irpen on Alex Kov's talk page ] and ] he did not answer. ] and the anonim are the same person. They not only do the same edits to ], but also highly unusual edits to Rurikids princes see history of ], ], ] as well Japanese prefectures. He did not answer Irpen's comments. In any case I warned the user about the 3RR rule but he choose to ignore it. That is my explanation. If you feel that I should be blocked, please go ahead, but Irpen did not do anything illegal, no violated any policy. ] 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer of being blocked, which shows integrity, though it is not something which I will do unilaterally. I wondered if something of what you said was occurring, but, assuming that it is true, a different approach is preferable. You are stating that a user is employing socks abusively, and the tack should be to resolve that situation. The anon has been editing as such for some time. Two against one, as in the current situation, always looks bad, especially when one is a blocking admin. It doesn't help our reputation for fairness. ] 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:BTW I find the Tyrenius's interpretation of ] to be extremely unusual. In my opinion the whole point of 3RR is that it is a surrogate of polling: if three editors prefer one version and two prefer another than the most popular opinion wins. So do not worry if you are right somebody else will restore your version. Now, if the interpretation is that you are not allowed to revert if somebody did two similar reverts before you then the effect on the editing process is quite dramatic. I am not sure how Wiki is suppose to work if everybody is allowed to revert against the consensus and the consensus is not allowed to revert back. ] 03:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed, it is a completely nonsensical interpretation of 3RR. 3RR applies to individual editors, not groups of editors. If one were to rule according to Tyrenius's view, it would mean that one editor could hold an article hostage against the will of any number of other editors, and we would have a "1RR rule", not a "3RR rule". Rather, if one individual is reverted by three other editors, that is not a sign that they have all violated 3RR, but rather a sign of consensus against that first editor's view. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:: I'd disagree with you there. The ] exists to encourage that people stop reverting, and actually take the issue to the talk page. Those reverting changes which are not vandalism should include "discuss on talk page" in their edit summaries. The 3RR rule can only be broken by a group when enforcing recient ''agreed'' consensus. Edit summaries do not provide enough space to include reasoning, preventing most forms of ''informed'' consensus being reached without having to use the talk page. If groups could act to ignore the 3RR, meatpuppetry and gang actions would become the prefered means to edit. ] 03:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::3RR in no way applies to groups, and never has. Groups who agree on something are not a "gang", or "meatpuppets", but rather "consensus". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: I completely agree with JayJG, at some stage I thought I have gone mad. Besides the talk page to the article and its archives are plastered with the discussion if the ] was a genocide and how to better formulate the facts. The latest section ] is specifically about the category. There was also a discussion on the ] page that belong to the blocked user. Really the ] is a result of long arguments and is a compromise ] 04:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: I agree as well. 3RR does not apply to "groups", but to individual editors. ] <small>] &bull; ]</small> 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Jayjg, consider a fairly common case wereby a group of editors wish to refuse to follow policy. In cases like this, their acts are simply not consensus. Misplaced Pages uses ''informed'' consensus, based on an understanding of policy, guidelines, good practice and so on. One does not create informed consensus through the brute pushing of a viewpoint (about all that's practical in the edit summary length), but through detailed discussion and evaluation. If 3RR represented a consensus, this would send the message that ignoring the concept of informed consensus is perfectly acceptable. 3RR must apply to groups also to stop group edit wars, another common occurance wereby the editors of an article all take sides, and there are enough of them to prevent 3RR from being noticably reached. If a consensus has formed on the talk page, the best approach is for the first reverter to state "See the talk page". If the original editor cannot find the entry, they then may leave a summary of "could not find the section". The next revert should then either point out the most recient clear consensus, or state "Let's dicuss this". It seems to me in this case that the group reverting was justified, but they allowed an edit summary argument to occur rather than continuing to attempt to drag the matter onto the talk page ] 04:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::3RR appling to "groups", not just individuals? No. Never has, and never will. Talk about "policy creep." Lina, you've been contributing to the project now, what, like two months? You may want to consider spending a little more time contributing to articles and getting to better understand policy and convention here before lecturing us on how policy is applied. Especially to arbcom members. ] 05:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::: I note that you choose to use the age of my account as an argument, rather than actually debating the subject via reason. ] probably applies here. If you check through my edits, you'll see I am contributing quite nicely, and the situations I am refering to are occuring in articles I am editing. The literal interpretation behind the 3RR rule does not apply to groups, no. But the ''spirit'' of the rule is to prevent edit wars, which often may not consist of only two users, or one user verses 'the rest'. ] 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::: This is not a case of BITE, rather, this is a case of experience mattering. FM clearly stated that you might want to spend time "getting to better understand policy and convention here" - a gentle reminder that perhaps you simply don't understand the policy well, not a bite. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::She understands it perfectly: "the ''spirit'' of the rule is to prevent edit wars." ] 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: More so to prevent single editors from edit warring against consensus. When there are many editors in two groups edit warring protection is in order. If a single user disagrees with the general consensus it is that users job to either convince the other editors (or if that fails) get an outside mediator or opinion to step in. 3RR simply has no bearing on groups of editors. ] 20:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I just came online and found out this amazing thread from the note left by ] at my talk. If he had some questions on the issue, he could have asked for details if he is too busy to spend a little time to clear this up from the edit histories on his own. I would have happily answered all his questions and so would Alex, who found himself bizzardly accused in Admin abuse.

Here is the situation. Anon IP {{user|133.41.4.46}}, who is also {{user:133.41.4.47}} which both are also {{user|Alex Kov}} who chooses to edit without logging in switching between these two IPs and in all likelihood also {{user|Oleksiy}} appears to be a non-responding sterile revert warrior. He has his views. That's fine of course. What's not fine is that he resorts to abusive methods to force his POV into the articles, such as switching between IPs and usernames, not responding to attempts to talk, to calls to register and/or edit from an account, and when he finally said something, he just made a bunch of curt statements that defy days and days of talk discussions.

His entire edit history to this day consisted from:
* a well referenced piece from ] article
*sterile revert warring in several articles trying to insert the ] images he drew in defiance of historical research (see ). Involved articles include ], ], ] and ] (in the latter he was also removing a photo from a historical monument as well as the dab on top
*Finally, on the very same day something got to him to start a sterile rv war aimed at adding cat:Genocide to ]. The latter issue has been discussed at ] to death and the current version reflects the outcome of that discussion that the article should reflect that some researchers consider it a Genocide but such a view is not as generally accepted as e. g. for ]. I am well involved on that article and I wrote much for it. I participated in lengths of discussions at the talk. I am intimately familiar with the state of the art in the research of the issue. The anon/sock was first reverting in silence and after multiple calls at several talk pages to talk, he defiantly stated that some laws exist that claim that Holodomor was indeed a Genocide. I pointed to him that no law can say such a thing. The law he probably means is the ]. Convention provides only a definition and does not list any specific cases. As such, it is up to scholars to agree or disagree on whether the definition fits a specific case. The scholarly debate is still unresolved as presented in the article. He did not respond and resorted to sterile reverting despite being warned multiple times.

When finally Alex Bakharev blocked the editor who did nothing but disruption we get these strange "reviews", like the 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) post by Tyrenius. More can be seen at anon's talks and ]. The statement that "The net effect is that an editing decision has been achieved by force rather than argument," is plain incorrect. The article was simply restored to pre POV-push attempt that it reached through prolonged discussion and search by multiple editors. The "..don't be reckless" clause at ] is there for a very good reason. I thoroughly agree with statements above that revert wars are harmful and useless and discussion should be always preferred but with certain editors it is imnpossible to discuss things. Editors who refuse to talk, ignore calls to read past discussions, refuse to use registered accounts and instead use multiple IPs to circumvent 3RR by such activity exhaust the ] guideline and need to be tought to become responsive if they can't be talked into that. If Tyrenius or anyone else has more questions on the matter, I am looking forward to hear from him. --] 07:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:I spent some time analysing not only the edits, but also the article talk page. Each situation has to be judged on its own merits. I am not suggesting a rigid rule that should be imposed everywhere. I am assessing whether this situation was conducted properly, and I find there are aspects which don't meet the standard we should aim for. Accusations of sockpuppetry are being made now: those things should have been addressed initially, not afterwards here, when the editor is not even able to participate. 3RR is never an excuse to get away with reverting 3 times: it is a barrier to reverting any more than three times. The spirit of this is that there should not be mindless edit wars.

:I am concerned that there was not dialogue, and that, even though the anon tried to initiate it, it was only responded to 2 minutes before he was then blocked. That is not something to be encouraged. The editors opposing him were relying on being able to escape the strict 3RR by having more reverts at their disposal. This is not in accord with the aim of the 3RR rule. That rule operates when there is a consensus to stop a rogue editor, but two editors is hardly a consensus. I don't find that this short but intense session of reverts over a single category in this way reflects well on any of the participants, especially when it is finally resolved by one of the involved editors blocking his opponent.

:Irpen's basis of argument is also questionable, as he has decided that the term "genocide" can only be agreed if scholars are united in its application, and that its use by governments is invalid. This, to say the least, is not definitive, but is now seen as the arbiter of consensus over the issue in this article.

:Some of the arguments above have descended to ''ad hominem'' (and ''pro hominem''). That is not the sign of a good argument. Let us address the points on their merit, not on who made them.

:] 11:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Tyrenius, with all due respect, it is not up to one individual to judge what is or not "in accord with the aim of the 3RR rule." The dialogue on that was established ages ago on the talk page, so if a rogue editor omits to read the dialogue, it's just about his problem.
:: And btw, the editor in question probably created socks to avoid the block, making his behaviour even more questionable. The issue was debated and is explained quite well in the "Was holodomor genocide?" section of the article. Being rogue does not prevent one from reading the damzor thing.
:: Consequently, I would rather not push things further and not run against a respectable and well-established policy.
:: Personally I endorse Alex's block fully. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not disputing the block, so that is irrelevant. Nor am I challenging the policy: ] makes it clear that there is no licence to neatly nip up to 3RR and be in the clear. If there is edit warring it is blockable with less reverts. The policy is the spirit of that, and not the letter of the law. I've made my points above, but if there is no consensus that they are of concern, then I'll leave it. ] 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole purpose of 3rr is to let tempers cool down when a conflict between two people gets too heated. It is obvious to me that if others revert a particular user, we are dealing with an entirely different situation. Sometimes this happens with very obvious cases of vandalism or trolling. Sometimes it happens in more complicated situations. But no matter what, when it happens it is not because one person has lost his or her cool. Multiple people reverting a user is an example of the community at work.

Let's really look at this proposal to see how absurd it is. What is being suggested is this: once a person has been reverted three times, they are immune from being reverted. is this really the situation we want here? I do not think so.] | ] 10:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

:What is being suggested is that 1RR is optimal followed by other solutions. This should involve discussion if the involved editors are in good faith. If there is a deliberate violation of consensus, then they can be warned for abusive behaviour and sanctioned if they persist. If thre is a sockpupper, then they can be blocked as such. I hope you find these suggestions less absurd. ] 20:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tirenius, I find your suggestions not just non-absurd, but excellent. The problem isn't that what you say is wrong. It isn't! However, you are making a set of entirely correct statements but the problem is that they are not applicable to the particular case. 1RR is optimal, true. Non-reverting is even better. Discussing at talk between many editors with different views who are all acting in good faith in search of consensus is an ideal solution for an ideal world. This solution could not be applied in this case because the situation is different. The rogue user resorted to a series of sterile reverts using anon ip accounts. He repeatedly defied all attempts to engage him into any meaningful discussions. He was asked to log in which he also refused to do. Finally, he supplied his final revert with a frivolous statement that cannot be interpreted as a "discussion" but makes it clear that he either did not read the talk page where it was discussed or choose to simply disregard everything said there.

Socks are to be blocked in their own right. Users who resort to sterile reverts, then are asked to discuss, refuse to do so and persist with reverting are not proper candidates to have discussions with. In such case, there is nothing else to do but revert the user. That many users do so proves the consensus or at least violation of ] "...but don't be reckless" clause. 3RR is by no means an entitlement. It is a guideline based on the principle that edit warring is harmful but discussions are preferable. However, you can't force the user into the discussion if he adamantly refuses to and ignores all the past discussions. There is nothing else left to do with such user but revert him, ask him many times to explain himself and, and if he persists with sterile revert wars, he's got to be blocked. 3RR is a very useful guideline ''both'' by a letter and by a spirit. --] 22:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

==Shanghai bus deleted by mistake==
While editing Shanghai Bus, the server went down. Now the text is deleted, and I can't get it back no matter how many times I try to paste my edit in. It's blank. I don't want to be named a vandal. --Outlook
:It's fixed; don't worry. Take a look at the five bullet points at the top of ] to learn how to do this yourself in the future. Happy editing. ~ ] 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

== G.I. Joe character list DELETED without cause. It was a valid list. ==

] 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am the creator of a page that was formerly found at http://en.wikipedia.org/G.I._Joe_character_list

It listed a name of every character from the series. Dozens of these names also had links to wikipedia pages others have created about those characters.

I believe it is a very valuable and valid page.

Why the sudden deletion?

I checked the deletion logs, but they don't even list it.

Since I see other series have pages with list of all characters from that series, complete with links to wikipedia articals about those characters, I don't understand why mine was deleted. Surely it is the result of vandalism.

This information is listed nowhere else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/GI_Joe
The main G.I. Joe page has a link to my list. And the list of hundreds of names wouldn't really fit on that page.

Can someone undelete this please, and tell me if it was a vandal that destroyed it somehow?
:Um, the list seems to be there: ]. Am I missing something? --] (]) 14:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

: Huh? I still see it - ]. —]]] 14:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::There was some sort of weirdness going on. I went there and it gave me the "Misplaced Pages does not have an article by this name" page, but didn't have a deletion log. In fact, the history log was still available and when I clicked "edit this page" it looked like the article. I clicked "save page" without changing anything and the page was back (with no record of any edit by me). Seems like some sort of glitch? --] 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Perhaps not clearing your cache resulted in this? ] <small>(])</small> 01:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: I thought it perhaps had something to do with the database error of yesterday. I had someone today thinking I deleted an article. The article indeed seemed gone. ] did the trick. ] ] 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I noticed what appears to be the same problem with a different article, on 16 or 17 September. On the page ], I clicked on the link for ] and got the "Misplaced Pages does not have an article by this name" page. I did Search for ] and got the same results both from the Go and when clicking on ] in the list of Search results. ] is fine now, though. -- ] 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:I've had that error a few times in recent days with different articles and category pages. The article history was there though and a null edit brought it back. --] 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

==Mccready is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to Pseudoscience==
Based on this discussion on AN/I and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, {{user5|Mccready}} is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is ''encouraged'' to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. ] 22:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
*Hm, interesting. There was a discussion about community probation last week (i.e. deciding that a user should stay away from certain articles, as opposed to a community ban which decides a user must stay away from the entire 'pedia). Based on the response there, it sounds like a good idea to give this a shot. Based on the heavy mailflow on the Admin Noticeboard, I figured it might be a good idea to log all current probations on a single page (but please keep all related discussion on ''this'' page). I've created a log at ] with some deliberately vague language at the top (feel free to edit) because I'm quite sure we don't need a formal legislative process for this. ] 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
::Good idea. Logged here. --] 23:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, good idea. ] 05:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Jason Gastrich has emailed me asking that his community ban be rescinded. He promises not to use sockpuppets and to serve out the term of his one-year arbcom ban, counted from the date of the last sock activity. Opinions? ] (]) 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
: The problem was not in the main the sockpuppetry, although that was a massive problem in itself, the problem was his contempt for policy and consensus, his use of external sites to solicit support, and abnove all his apparnet desire to use Misplaced Pages first and foremost as a vehicle to promote his own agenda. <b>]</b> 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with JzG's no. View the edits made at ] by new users. I strongly ask that his ban not be lifted. There is no compelling evidence his behavior has changed or will change.
::During RfAR he didn't even bothering apologizing, admitting sock puppets, or coming to terms with his actions. He denied his actions, had contempt for other users and the rules. ] 22:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Count it from the "last day of sock activity"? So yesterday? {{vandal|Shog5}} made the same edits as a new user a few months ago. He is permantently banned from the Louisiana Baptist University article and it still gets hit. Here's a new user adding Gastrich's webpage to the article. Here's different a new user adding the same Gastrich page. Adding another Gastrich page.

::: The links added recently, go back to what he stated in the RfRA: "I disagree with JzG and Arbusto's viewpoint that '''a link to one of my web pages''' or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong." He was here to promote himself and his views no matter what the rules are. ] 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:Opinions? Sure, I can do that. Here it is: No. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:It's the silly season. All the daft banned trolls are crawling back and asking to be given another chance. No. --]04:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Not one of our prolific and disruptive biased sockpuppeteers. ] 05:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

: This seems pretty close to negotiating with terrorists. He promises if we let him back he won't use sockpuppets? Maybe when the LBU page isn't hit by him for a few months we could consider it possibly. That is not this point (we'd still have the problem that he had few if any productive edits). ] 21:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich is the worst sockmaster I've ever dealt with. No. ] ] 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:Its also worth noting his presence on , where he plugs his goods. For fun, count how many times he refers to himself as "Dr", and count how many times he mentions that his doctorate is from an unaccredited, mail order "school". ] 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:: Given his complete lack of any contributions whatsoever at meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jason_Gastrich) I see no reaosn why he should be allowed to use his page there to spam his websites and books. I'm all for giving people a second chance if I think there's a chance of redemption, but here? I see absolutely no hope that Gastrich will ''ever'' place policy and consensus above his own personal bias. <b>]</b> 22:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

::: Someone want to go find somoene with some authority on Meta to go blank his userpage then? Otherwise I'll ] (yes I know the previous link is not a meta policy). ] 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:::: Never mind. I did it already. ] 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Good grief, is there even a question of this? No, no, and again no. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

::He's even got a sock puppet there. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/User:Ruth_Ginsling). ] 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

:::If Jason is genuine, then I would welcome him back - but he would have to make a full apology to the community. --] 09:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

::::A full apology means admitting he did something wrong. The few apologies he's ever given have been to apologize for being misunderstood - for you misunderstanding him. You're chances of getting a real apology ... I'd support lifting the ban if he made a full apology, which means I'm not in favor of lifting the ban ever. ] 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gastrich's inability to concede LBU's lack of meaningful accreditation as a problem because of x, y and z (for example, notable guest speakers at LBU); is an unfortunate indication he has firmly held POV's that aren't reconcilable with being a constructive Wikipedian. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:Personal attacks at google ] 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
::And another sock: ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

* The community might also want to consider , where we read, "spiritually, me and some other believers were becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers, having to form close relationships as we dredged over the minutia of each Christian entry and what should and shouldn't be included. In every case, the '''''unbelievers''' wanted sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and in many cases incorrect information included'' and some others and I insisted on including the truth and excluding that nonsense. This opposition met us head on and I was eventually banned for one year. ''I don't see myself returning to Misplaced Pages because I have shaken the dust from my shoes''. In fact, we even decided to end the Wiki4Christ.com web site that was sending Christians to Misplaced Pages. ''It is an awful place for Christians who sincerely want the truth fairly represented''." All emphasis added was by me. So, if Misplaced Pages is an "awful place for Christians" such as Gastrich, why would he want to return? Notice that Gastrich implicitely denies using sockpuppets in the same commentary. Regardless, Gastrich has had a few unkind things to say about Misplaced Pages since his expulsion, and that includes recent comments. Those were certainly "sour grapes," but they're enough to bring his sincerity into question. ] 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

: Interesting, wiki4christ.com now redirects to Jason's own ministry. Why am I not surprised. Such issues aside, one of the reasons I supported the final indef ban was the complete unacceptability of using an outside source to attempt to get outside help target and overwhelm articles here. If he has stopped doing so, for whatever reason, that is a good sign. Unfortunately, the reasons he gives for stopping in no way indicate he will be at all a helpful Wikipedian. ] 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

* During the discussion in arbitration, Gastrich wrote, "I'm going to avoid Misplaced Pages for awhile. However, I am going to encourage everyone I know to continue contributing. Therefore, don't expect to be hearing from me, but ''expect to be hearing from them'' ." The community certainly ''did'' hear from "them," didn't it? It might be especially noteworthy that Gastrich denied using sockpuppets during the arbitration discussion, and also on his "response" site, but then seems to tacitly admit doing them, according to what was related by Stifle at the beginning of this thread. This wouldn't be the first time that Gastrich has changed his story so that he might accomplish whatever it is that he wants to accomplish. What is clear is that he saw the problems at Misplaced Pages as being one of those who believe as he does being in battle with "unbelievers." He's posted that sort of commentary a few times since his expulsion, and it's clear from those comments that he ''still'' believes that. That should be taken into consideration during any discussion of a lifting of a ban that was imposed with good cause by the consideration of good evidence. ] 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

* Maybe Jason should undergo some form of mentorship, and agree not to edit the controversial Christian articles - is this a reasonable suggestion?? Also, he'd have to make a full apology to the community. --] 09:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*:As I noted before, a full apology is unlikely because it means admitting he did something wrong. However if he were to do that, I'd be willing to accept the role of mentor, as unworthy as I am of it. ] 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

::LiverpoolCommander, Gastrich has been banned from the very articles that are getting hit right now with links to his websites. So what would ''asking'' him not to edit those articles do? Also go through his edit history. I have received two or three apologies from him. Yesterday, there was a personal attack on me and others posted on wikipedia and an off-site forum. Your two conditions for including have been met already, and he has not changed. ] 16:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

::: Has anyone looked at yet? A request at ] may be overdue. <b>]</b> 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

==]==
I don't know how familiar people here are with him but apparently a large number of people on the Misplaced Pages IRC channel knew him. No disrespect intended, but this article is recreation of previously deleted content. See the ] which apparently he himself initated by saying he didn't feel he was notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. Now I know I could tag it as ] but I feel even tagging it as such may generate some ill will. I'd like to get a consensus about what should be done here first, perhaps circumstances have changed and the community indeed feels he is now notable enough for an article. ] 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The AFD was about 9 months ago, and circumstances have changed so db-repost isn't sutible, another AFD would likely be kept as well. ] ] 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:(After edit conflict) In that case the article should state what makes him more notable now than when he was at the time of the first AfD. From what I can by the information in the article, his claims to notability have not changed since January, hence the first AfD would stand. ] 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the log and history, the article was restored today to restore the edit history after content was merged; before that it had been redirected to ] since January. The redirect has now been undone, but if content has been merged it can't be simply deleted. The thing to do would be to get consensus to re-redirect the article in the normal way. Incidentally, dying is not a claim to notability. I would have been perfectly willing to delete this per ] G4 if this was just a standard repost (which it isn't). --]<sup>]</sup> 02:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(Just got edit conflicted twice) Well, I think he is a lot more notable now then ever before.... but ] only has a few thousand users, and I haven't a clue if that makes him notable. Personally I think we need to find a reliable biography to use as a source, because as it stands, all we know about is his death. (which earlier incarnations of the article didn't even have). Ok, time for google. ] (] • ]) 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
*The page has been reverted to a redirect and reverted back to an article twice each now. I still have yet to see any new information towards his notability that would show why he is more notable since the AfD in January. ] 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We've also become more inclusionist since then. You know we have ], right? Give it up. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 21:12, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)
:We've had thse farm to market roads since long before that AfD (I've checked one, and it survived an AfD in January 2005 with no consensus). So your example is invalid, and the idea that we have become "more inclusionist" is not reflected in policies or guidelines. There are some categories of articles where we have (sadly, IMO) become more inclusionist, to the point of dropping all questions of importance, notability, or even being somheow remarkable or exceptional, and where the only necessities are verifiablilty and NPOV. But for most articles, I don't have the impression that the "rules" have changed or that more articles are kept. If it's not notable, delete it. ] 08:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

: Circumstances have changed since the original nomination to AFD, if someone contests the notability of this person they should renominate the article and allow it to be discussed there. ] 00:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting this without discussion on the basis that it was "previously deleted content" is process over substance. It should not be speedily deleted on that basis. As many people have pointed out, standards of notability have changed. I personally think that Rob would be considered notable under current standards; in any case, there should be a proper discussion rather than an attempt to strongarm misunderstood policy to circumvent such a discussion. ] (]) 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

== Desg ==

I am sorry, I am very, very green and I doubt I am doing this correctly, but there it is.

This user is a spammer: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Desg

All his contributions are adding his commercial links to Wiki pages.

In particular, on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Stained_glass

He has removed a very valuable link about stained glass restoration and replaced it with a link to his newly formed forum. He has added a very plain stained glass window of his in the middle of the world's best examples, with a link to his commercial site.

On this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Lead_came_and_copper_foil_glasswork

He added a link to a tool he sells and did a similar trick with the external links as he did for the page above.

Most importantly, after the pages were restored, he promptly returned to spam the Wiki pages again, and added his spammy links once more.

I understand there is some sort of warning system but I am not confident enough to do this, I cannot be sure I will do it right.

I would appreciate if someone could oversee this matter. Thank you.

:Recommend adding <code>downeaststainedglass.com</code> on the spam blacklist. ] 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:With spammers, you usually warn them incrementally with templates {{tl|spam}}, {{tl|spam2}}, {{tl|spam3}}, {{tl|spam4}} each time they return to their activity. Use their talk page for that. If they persist, you report them at ]. See ] for other warning templates. ] 07:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:He is also spamming with <code>stainedglassville.com</code> and <code>free-recipe-site.com</code> ] 09:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This person Roger J has a personal hatred for me and is attempting to destroy my credentials. Please call me by phone to discuss further if you have any questions. My phone # is at the bottom of my website I can produce legal harrassment papers to back my claims. DESG
: Whether or not this is the case (it is certainly odd that his only contributions here are related to you), for the most part he is correctly interpreting Misplaced Pages standards. Our ] policy strongly discourages editors from adding links to their own sites and/or to commercial sites. ] 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:Please note that this user has removed warnings to his talk page with edit. I have restored the warnings and added <nowiki>{{subst:Wr0}}</nowiki> as appropriate, as it appears this user may not understand our policies regarding talk pages but did not appear to remove the warnings in a botched archiving attempt or as part of a formatting error. ] * ] 15:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::He's been temporarily blocked for violating 3RR. --] (]) 18:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Presently he seems to be testing the limits of tolerance of Wikipedians regarding linking to his website. The new strategy involves gratuitious mentions of his website accompanied with a link to some page or other of downeaststainedglass.com ], ], ], ]. Given his past behavior I suspect he is curious as to how many times he can insert his link outside of the "External Links" sections before being warned. I also suspect he is venting his frustration about being caught spamming with a NPOV dispute on this page ]. It's a lot of work to protect the Wiki pages from his dogged pursuance of a personal and commercial agenda. Assistance from the community would be much appreciated. ] 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
: Please see ]. I don't know enough about stained glass to evaluate whether he is an eeeevil spammer or a good-faith contributor with valuable information on the subject. Dispute resolution is the way to bring in people who are experienced with Misplaced Pages (and hopefully even some with stained glass experience) to look over the situation. ''This'' page is not for dispute resolution; please do not try to carry out the argument here. ] 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

== Redirecting sites ==

Please redirect ] to ] as applies only to Vancouver area whereas the other one is in a broder sense in being Canadian.

--] 07:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
*Followed up on user's talk page. ] 07:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

This category has grown overly huge over the years, and frankly it is pretty ugly to visitors of the encyclopedia that might even end up there via ]. In my opinion we should prune it. I have been trying to replace a few with sensible redirects, but for most of this list I can't think of any. What I'd like to do is generate a list of all PDPs that are older than, say, three months, and delete the lot of those (because I don't think most recreators are all that persistent in the first place). What would people think of that? ] 10:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:Absolutely, this is horrible clutter - and in some cases it's even blocking the creation of legitimate articles. I proposed cleanup procedures a while back at ]. ] 11:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:I'd say go for it. Most of the recreators are just bored schoolkids who will have wandered off elsewhere by the end of the day anyway. Deleting 3 month old deleteprotected pages should be no problem (even 1 month old should not be a problem in general), I think most of the "backlog" is simply due to the fact that most admins, myself included, just protect a page and then forget about it. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 11:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::I'd also support this as long as a suitable time period is given (such as one to three months, per ] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span>. While I don't want to name names, there is an administrator who is currently arbitrarily undoing these deleted pages with the edit summary "Old deleted-protected page unlikely to be recreated." The problem is that a number of the pages he/she is undoing were protected only days ago. While there is nothing wrong with getting rid of these pages once the risk of vandalism and such has passed, doing so after only a few days is a a waste of everyone's time. --] 11:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:: I would be opposed to assigning specific time ranges for this. Some unprotection after a couple of days would be fine, for some I've seen 6 months later people still wanting to recreate an article delted as ] based on the same "sources" available when initially deleted. This should be a common sense thing. --] 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

*I found this: ]. Sounds useful. ] 12:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::That's an interesting page but not very useful since it must be manually updated. Is it possible to create an automatic page along these lines?--] 12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::: Well cl_timestamp is actually a field on the categorylinks database table, so I would suggest that this is actually being extracted rather than manually produced. That timestamp has its problems since IIRC it gets updated each time the page gets changed rather than when the category was added, however for this purpose that shouldn't be an issue... --] 13:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::It's defenently possible, it requires accesss to the database though, and unfortunately the toolserver still doesn't have a working copy of the enwiki database. Guess the best bet is to download a dump of the categorylinks database (the most recent ones is only 6 days old as of now) and run some querries offline. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Luckily, even regular users have limited access to the database; see ] or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php (I know that at least two bots use this method to get cl_timestamp data). --] 09:54, 18 September 2006 (]]])
::Is it not possible, in addition to whatever pruning we might do, to get the developers to come up with a way of not picking them up on random? <b>]</b> 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I about whether ] would find them a month ago. However, now that I think about it, if the developers applied a way to make exceptions to finding these from special:random, there would be a clamor about "excusing this article," "excusing that article," and excusing all articles with deletion, wikify, and NPOV tags, too. In my opinion, when sysops deal with this category, the goal should be to keep it tidy and miniscule, not to dump things in it and hope they're ]. They should just use their common sense about what needs to be protected against recreation indefinitely, what can be removed from this category after a week, and everything in between. If effective pruning is carried out, then there will be very little need to excuse these protected deleted pages, if only due to the tiny amount of them in total. ] 19:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I've gotten a protected deleted page twice recently while clicking random article, so yes this is beginning to be a problem. I would support a way to not be able to get pages in this category if the developers can do that. If not, I think finding redirects would be the best way to get rid of a lot of the pages in that category. Who knows how many are ] related, perhaps everyone should do a scan over the category and make redirects to anything they recognize. ] 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of these are protected after having been deleted for legal reasons and whatnot; perhaps we need another template (identical but for the category) for these? &mdash; ] | ] 20:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, let's just keep them protected and redirect them all to ] or something similar. A template could be used to categorize such redirects for later perusal, in fact it could even be the same template we're using now. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 21:09, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC)
*I'd say that rather than making feature requests, our easiest solution is to delete most of those pages. I'd be happy to give it a shot, and if two or three other admins chime in it's not really that much work with a tabbed browser. ] 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense for someone to go through and clear out the old ones, but it is absolutely essential that we maintain a list of these pages somewhere so that we can, in the future, look over it to see which redlinks turned blue and determine if the recreation was valid. How about maintaining the list at ]? --] 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:Do you mean ] or a new bot generated list? --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 08:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::Oh I see '''deleted''' protected deleted pages, so new list then, nevermind. Yeah, usefull to keep taps on recreations. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 08:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::*Also, you can watchlist deleted pages, and they'll show up if recreated. And also, you can check in your deletion log whether any page you deleted has been recreated. ] 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:::*A watchlist doesn't do nearly the same thing because: it only works for one person not everyone; if multiple people are deleting these protected deleted pages then no single person will have the list; and watchlists are generally used for lots of other stuff, and if you aren't editing for over a day or so, you will totally miss it. Thus, it is essential that we create a page somewhere where we list all of these protected deleted pages that are deleted so ''everyone'' can keep an eye on the redlinks that turn blue and make sure that it is valid content. --] 02:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Having a list of deleted deleted-protected pages might be over-kill unless it can be done extremely easily; most are not re-created and when they do they seem to be mostly found, and then that's just another backlog that has to be cleared of dead items. Keep in mind also that many of these topics actually do warrant articles, mostly for ''different'' persons other than the one that was deleted. That's the main reason for getting rid of these deleted pages. There are so few relative to the number of articles that readers getting them on a Random article is not a significant problem, but when you have major political figures, etc. blocked because some bozo with a similar name created a vanity page in a space of 2 minutes 6 months ago, that is a problem.

The list we currently have at ] will last at least for the deletedpages until 8-10-2006. Whereas bots are necessary to do things on a daily basis, this list doesn't absolutely ''need'' to be created more than once a month really. It would be nice though to have it automatically created.

Another way to help out with deletedpages is through ]. Recently protected deletedpages show up there (mostly at 15 bytes). If the page was created in the space of an hour 4 days ago, delete. If it looks like it's a little more chronic problem, append a little comment that pushes it off the list, like <nowiki><!--Excess long comment to prevent listing on ]............................................................--></nowiki>. This ''is'' an automatically generated list and is cutting down the backlog from the other end, as well as doing it from the Kotepho list. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:The rule of thumb I've been using whether to keep them protected is whether the amount of time between the first deletion and the last deletion is longer than the amount of time between the last deletion and now, with leeway if someone has talked about creating a legitimate article on the talk page. As you can see from the list, most don't stay protected. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
*This purging has started; I've already seen some others work on it besides myself. Any help would be appreciated. ] 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

== Huh? ==

] ] 15:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:Same as ] A null edit did the trick. ] 15:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

==]==

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. ParalelUni's community ban is endorsed. Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned identified in the case, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits.

For the Arbitration Committee. ] 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

== Lollywood Block review ==

I have blocked {{User5|Lollywood}} indefinitely as he has continued to insert copyrighted text into various articles despite warnings. This includes ] , ] , ] , ] etc.

I should note that the same user has in the past edited from the ip block 82.159.*.* as evidenced by exactly same copypasting in these articles (, etc.) and was warned/blocked several times in the last 2 months. --] 18:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Added: Further evidence of vandalism/disruptions include , , , and so on. --] 18:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I support Ragib's actions.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

==]==

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z. Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation. Should Kehrli violate any ban placed on him by this decision or engage in substitution of notation, he may be blocked for an appropriate time. All blocks are to be logged at ].

For the Arbitration Committee. ] 18:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

== Remove loong talk diatribes per SOAP? ==

Is it ok to revert long diatribes on talk pages per ]? ] has been protected due to large additions of POV text, and now its moved to the talk page, with no real attempt to construct proper content for inclusion. Can the most recent cut/paste be removed? . --] (]) 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
:If it's not copyvio I would say the best idea is to ]. &mdash;] 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
::Didn't think of the copyvio issue. As it stands, the diff above is a large cut/paste from the newspaper article (but it cited as such). --] (]) 19:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
==Some input to ]==
I'm going to ] and not revert, but (actually a series of small edits) added lots of red links to the ] page. Can anybody determine if these people are notable writers? ]|] 19:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:Well the first three are legitimate authors, and IMO they meet the notability criteria. However, the article is a ''List of African-American writers'', and there doesn't seem to be a notability threshold for inclusion. I didn't read up enough to figure out if they are actually African-American, which is an issue and should be verified. But what's the existing standard of verifiability on the article? Have all the 'blue-linked' authors been verified as A-A? If the issue is the red-links, IMO the discussion should wait until actual ''articles'' are written about them, whereupon it can be decided whether or not they are notable enough to warrant them. ] 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) From what I can tell they appear to be notable writers, although I haven't checked every one. Should serve as a good guideline for creating some new articles in an area Misplaced Pages is short on. &mdash;] 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}}
::Great, thanks for the input from both of you. ]|] 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block. ==
== Request for Unblock ==


See ].
] has requested to be unblocked after being indefinitely blocked in July 2006. I wanted to post here to try to gain some community consensus as to whether or not Misplaced Pages would benefit from giving this user another chance. ]] 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This user created an undoubtedly spammy page, and deleting it was justifiable. However, they were also issued an indef hard block tagged as {{tl|uw-spamublock}} by ]. There is no username violation, therefore this is a bad block. While I understand asking some questions, trying to educate a user as to why their deleted content was not appropriate, I don't understand why multiple admins, specifically ] and ] did not simply undo the obviously bad block.


The username has no obvious or even implied connection to the subject the user was writing about, therefore there was no blatant violation of the username policy, so the block was invalid. Whether the blocking admin chose the wrong setting by accident or on purpose, it was a manifestly incorrect block. I am not at all comfortable with multiple admins seeing this and letting them remain blocked while they wait for the blocking admin to come by and explain an obviously incorrect action.
: Looking at a random selection, all this user's "contributions" to Misplaced Pages seem to have been torrential outpourings of utter nonsense - looks to be typical. No unblocking, please. --] (]) 21:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::The unblock request was recently reviewed and denied by ]. ]] 21:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::Um, that's just ... bizarre. ]|] 21:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I didn't use the "unblock reviewed" template so the user was still listed at ] and Centrx must have been working there and missed my comment on the user's talk page mentioning this thread and made the decision to deny the request. ]] 22:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::I just erupted in laughter after reading that. Yeah, the indefinite block is completely warranted. I wonder if this overdescribing of everything couldn't be caused by some mental disorder, though. -- ] (]) 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:I also went through this user's contributions, and I think ajn's assessment is spot-on. In fact, I'm not sure I could find a single diff which ''cannot'' be characterized as a "torrential outpouring of utter nonsense". For example, . Perhaps I've missed some, but can anyone point me to good edits by this user? --- ] (]) 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
::Not rely, I remember running into him a while back when he made a royal mess of the ] page with one of his philosophical rants and a page move. I've never seen anyone capable of writing so much nonsense and still somehow stay on topic on some level, almost a ] quality to his "work". A usefull contributer his is not thogh, he would write lengthy rants on his talk page defending his works when people called him on his vandalism. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
:He was indefinitely blocked for making death threats, and didn't consider that he might need to apologise for them before an unblock request would be taken seriously, instead trying to claim that ''"There is only one way to deal with bullies - a gun. If you are collecting my articles, you must to be shot to save humanity, per your own definition - a Darwin Award"'' is a ''"figure of speech"''. Should we unblock? Hell no. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Just to be clear, I've already undone the block, this is more about admins holding each other accountable and being willing to reverse obviously wrong decisions where a user is blocked without justification. ] ] 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
== Proposed ban of JarlaxleArtemis ==
: You have unilaterally undone the block. You could have waited for Jimfbleak to consent to the unblock. A block for advertising or promotion would have been legitimate. ] (]) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::The block reasoning was manifestly invalid, and we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page. ] ] 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Hi there! As was mentioned below, I am a fairly new administrator (September) and am still learning the ropes. I often try to be kind and see the best in editors when they've been blocked. In the month or so I've been helping out with unblocks, I haven't seen your name around. If you'd like to help, we'd love to have you! ] (]) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, I actually just changed my name and my sig, but also I've been more active at AFD, and on the other end of the blocking process at ]. I do think it is a shame that so few admins work unblock requests, when it is only a few people, their opinions become ''de facto'' policy, which isn't good. I do know you are a fairly new admin, as I was one of the first dozen supporters at your RFA, under my then-username ]. I haven't changed my mind about that, but I don't like what I see here.
::::What concerns me is that you don't seem to have questioned the username violation aspect of this block at all. You could see the deleted page, and could see that it had no connection to the username, and that the name is clearly a common first name with some numbers around it. Being able to see and correct obvious administrative errors is part of the job, in particular when reviewing unblock requests from brand-new users. ] ] 03:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], let's say she had, and she reversed the block instead of asking about the connection to the company. When that editor then recreates their spam page and is indeffed as an advertising-only account, and an irritated admin swings by her talk page to chew her out, are you going to stick up for her? -- ] (]) 04:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for asking. Yes I would. However, you've misrepresented what happened. Again I will assume it is an simple mistake, but {{tq|asking about the connection to the company}} is not what she did, she ignored that aspect entirely. It was 331dot who finally raised a question about it. ] ] 04:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What? {{tq|Hello there! Can you tell me why you were interested in creating the Tripleye article? Do you have any connections with Tripleye?}} How is this not asking about the connection to the company? -- ] (]) 06:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok, My bad, I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about asking how the username relates to the company, which as far as anyone can tell it does not. ] ] 06:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::No indeed. What I'm saying is that, if Significa liberdade ''had'' unblocked without first determining whether the editor had a COI and educating them on what that would mean for their editing on Misplaced Pages, chances are very high that the editor would return to the same behaviour - creating AI-scented promotional articles. If that happened, someone would again CSD them, and I expect they would be blocked ''again'' (this time with more accurate rationale). Maybe after a few more warnings, maybe not. Probably some flak for SL, either as a direct "wtf are you doing, that editor had an obvious COI" talk page message, or a passive-aggressive swipe at her in an edit summary or block rationale or something. This would be a worse outcome in every way than taking the time to check in with the blocking admin and figure out whether the editor has a COI or not before unblocking. -- ] (]) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ah I'd no idea you'd changed your name. ] (]) 13:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::And changed the signature in a way which doesn't ''match'' the name, while appearing somewhat less serious. To each their own. ] (]) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:So, it wasn't even a posted article, but just a sandbox? Why couldn't the editor have had it pointed out to them that there needed to be improvements to fix the issues? I also don't agree with the whole "the admin who did a thing had to show up and agree or comment before you can do anything" nonsense. This entire thing seems overbearing, ] and just poor admin conduct altogether. ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::@], that "has to comment before you can do anything" bit is policy: ] and ]. -- ] (]) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The problem with said policy being the text {{tq|are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators}}, as we can see from the above case and in many other cases (GreenLipstickLesbian has an example list below). There really is not a reason to '''presume''' that admins carefully consider their actions, personally. Particularly when that consideration is not showcased from an action in the first place. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I left a note explaining our rules for new articles about companies. That’s usually a good first step when a new editor writes a promotional article.
:I can no longer see deleted contributions but all I see mentioned on 82James82’s talk page is a deleted sandbox. My understanding is that we are more tolerant of subpar material in sandboxes than article space. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::That is my understanding as well. It wasn't submitted to AFC or anything, just a sandbox, and if it had been submitted at AFC they would've rejected it, not blocked the user. This was the users's first edit, and they got an instant no-warning indef hard block, and when they appealed they got an interrogation session instead of a reversal of the unjustified block. ] ] 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:The ideal admin, in my mind, considers the protection of new editors to be one of their highest duties. They should ] to prevent or undo blocks. An admin who leans toward blocking without warning, or leans toward refusing unblocks when the editor expresses good faith, is more dangerous than a thousand vandals. ] (]) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Good deletion by JFB, bad block by JFB, and good unblock by <s>JSS</s> Beeb. '''But''' after the unblock, there no attempt at all to discuss this with JFB, SL, or 331 before coming here. Couldn't we try that first? Shouldn't we? ] (]) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think we need to have more public discussions about the community's expectation with regard to the treatment of new users. I know you have concerns that the intent of such discussions is to escalate matters, but my intent is the opposite. The two recent recalls happened because the admin corps did not effectively hold colleagues accountable. If we establish a public consensus here that clarifies that that is something we do want from admins, that should decrease the chances of further ugly recall proceedings. ] ] 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::My user talk is hardly not public. ] (]) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree with Floquenbeam - spam sandbox should have been deleted, the user should not have been blocked. ]] 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:(non-admin nosy parker comment) Significa Liberdade is one of our newest admins, so I think it's completely understandable that she would be nervous about going against two long-standing administrators. I think, @], discussing this with her first would have been a good idea.
:331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined. They do demonstrate a pattern of finding reasons not to overturn suboptimal blocks, and that's a pattern you should maybe think about changing. I know you made each of these declines in good faith, and you accepted that they other administrators had made them in good faith. And I didn't go hunting for these- these were already on my radar for different reasons, and I made a note of them. Sorry for the dates being all out of place.
:* This user was indeffed for "disruptive editing", because on their twentieth edit they added "]" to a plant that grew in south east Europe. (But was their twentieth edit and they'd never been told about redlinked categories before- just welcomed with a 4im vandalism warning for adding ] to an American surname article. No, I'm not kidding). In their unblock request, they said {{tq|I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.}}. 331dot declined the request, saying {{tq|Once you have gained a better understanding of policies, and have an edit you wish to make, please request unblock at that time}}.
:* This sock block was overturned by @] (with the rationale {{tq|This block is clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts}}), but 331dot had declined the initial unblock request using the justification {{tq|You used one account to comment on the talk page of the other, this makes it seem like you are multiple peopleI see no grounds here at this time to remove the block}}. (For clarification, the user never hid the fact they used two accounts. I don't see any ], neither did JBW, so I don't know how 331dot did).
:* This user was no-warning indeffed as NOTHERE due to their edits to the common.js/monobook.css page, and because the blocking admin seemingly did not notice the fact that the account also made several minor grammatical corrections to mainspace articles, had fixed formatting errors, and added cleanup tags. 331dot declined their unblock, saying {{tq| This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia.}} (What vandalism or disruptive editing?)
:* This user was no-warning indeffed for making tables in a wikiproject. (No, I'm not kidding). A more experienced editor confirmed that they'd asked the other editor to assist in projectspace. 331dot declined to unblock them, saying {{tq|It's not at all obvious to me that's why you are here.}}. No, I don't get all the Wikiproject people either, but the community consensus says that yes, those editors are ].
:TL;DR: {{tq|I see no grounds here at this time to remove the block}} is not a good attitude towards unblocks. We <em>want</em> editors to come back, and learn from their mistakes. We don't demand perfection. ] (]) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yikes! <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::The decline reason for Pbnjb1, with Yamla ''enforcing'' said provision no less, seems shamelessly punitive. Only unblocking when they say they have an edit to make? Just wow.... &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 02:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::''That'' block is pretty awful. Straight to final warning for vandalism, then to an indef. No vandalism whatsoever. -- ] (]) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::I will also point out their unblock denial at ], where a new editor who makes what appear to be respectful inquiries is accused of ] (frankly, I don't think they're POV pushing so much as just being polite, which we should encourage) and blocked for sockpuppetry with no further explanation of any sockpuppetry at all, and with a CU stating there is no evidence at all. That editor, by the way, still has not been unblocked, despite being willing to discuss concerns civilly with other editors and with administrators and neither has ] (the 4th example listed). ] <sup>(]) </sup> 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::: To be fair, there are only two options with that user - (a) they ''are'' a sock/troll/LTA, and (b) they are someone who is familiar with Misplaced Pages, perhaps editing as an IP, who made the spectacularly bad decision to create an account and head straight for ANI to vote for banning Fram (and you would have thought in that situation they would have ''known'' it would look suspicious). In that context, the CU data being negative may not be the positive thing it might look like, as if they are the former they probably ''would'' know how to avoid CU issues. Yes, we should AGF, but I can see why people didn't in that case. The other cases may be more problematic, though. ] 09:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: How can you see why people didn't? There is no "obvious evidence to the contrary" unless I'm missing something, the evidence presented is entirely circumstantial and non-obvious. ] (]) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: {{u|Horse Eye&#39;s Back}} You wouldn't be even ''slightly'' suspicious of a brand new editor that dived into an ANI block discussion with one of their first few edits? I would. ] 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: The guideline isn't slightly suspicious its obvious evidence. As a non-admin I would also have to temper any suspicion I had with being found liable for biting a newcomer, hence even when I'm almost entirely certain I still have to be open and respectful (and to just walk away when I can't actually prove anything). I do think that we tend to be pretty harsh with newcomers... If they're not good editors we ding them for being incompetent net negatives and if they're good we start calling them puppets. With all honesty I can say that I don't envy you admins though, the inherent conflict between being swift and severe with socks and AGF, BITE, etc is one of the great questions we face as a community. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::: No, which is why I didn't block them (I saw the edit when it was made). Looking at their previous few edits - using @ in their first edit, spelling lead as "lede", diving straight into AMPOL, that ''is'' a judgment call someone had to make. ] 19:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@] hold up, surely spelling lead as "lede" is evidence that they ''aren't'' a long-time wikipedian? We spell it "lead". It's American journalists who spell it "lede". -- ] (]) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I see most editors refer to "lede" not "lead", which while I can't stand the terminology personally is well documented as a concept per ]. It is therefore not indication of an editors' experience, ever. ] (]) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The linked page says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." and seems to overall document that we use lead not lede. ] (]) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::People using "lede" on Misplaced Pages is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I see plenty of long-standing editors use it, so I also don't take it as indicative of anything nefarious. &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::@] agreed, I hate it. ] ] 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think there's probably a conversation about how unblocks are handled that is worth having, but I'm sure having trouble getting fired up about this unblock in particular. An editor makes a blatantly promotional LLM-generated page, which is deleted; once they're blocked, two admins politely ask about the editor's possible connection to the company. It looks to me like it was headed for an unblock. No one's been rude or made threats, including the editors who dropped templated notices earlier. This looks better to me than ''most'' interactions I see between newcomers writing promo and experienced editors. -- ] (]) 01:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin}}
<pre>
== Tripleye ==
Tripleye is an integrated technology solution advancing the future of intelligent machines across a range of industries with cutting-edge autonomous systems and modules.


The company equips engineering teams with the tools needed to enable fully autonomous vehicles or specific autonomous functionalities. Its camera-based approach, rather than relying on LiDAR, delivers unmatched visual detail, scalability, affordability, and versatility.
According to the terms of an Arbitration on {{userlinks|JarlaxleArtemis}}, he can be banned for a year with the agreement of any three administrators. I suggest that we should do this, following his . He's also been guilty of copyright violations, flagrantly violating the MOS, removing deletion tags, POV/vandalism edits, posting the source code for a vandalbot, etc. (as seen on his ]). We can save the ArbCom a bit of time by dealing with this ourselves. They don't need to re-examine this case; they've already looked at him ''twice'' before, and what came out of it was that we can ban him for a year as necessary. I propose that it is now necessary. --] 23:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


By leveraging advanced computer vision and AI technologies, Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems tailored to their unique operational demands. The company’s patented technology, developed by an experienced team with a history of groundbreaking research and innovation, outperforms other solutions on the market.
:I am JarlaxleArtemis. I think that Cyde is the one who is trolling and should be banned. Of course, no one will believe me, but I just want to at least ''try'' to counter this admin's lies. His lies regarding me are My message telling him to stop are and . He then blocked me for trolling, even though he is the one who is trolling. Another lie about me is that he is saying I was trying to make a vandal bot. What will I gain with that? I pasted the script for Checkuser (yes, ''Checkuser'', '''not''' a vandal bot) on a freaking '''Sandbox''' page of mine. Great vandal bot that is, isn't it?--] 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Tripleye is headquartered in Berlin, Germany, with additional offices in Karlsruhe and New York City.
:According to , the second arbitration case was closed early because he was "permanently banned" for ]. After he was unblocked probationarily in November 2005, he has been blocked 8 times since for various disruptive behavior. In total, he has previously been blocked by 9 different administrators a total of 20 times. Based on looking at the comments in the block log and the arbitration case, it is clear that this user is repeatedly disruptive and is not amenable through promises, probations, or mentoring. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


== History ==
:Look, the source codes are readily available at ], which is linked to from ]. I am mistaken; the source code was for renaming users, not Checkuser. As if I could benefit from that. I need to be a bureaucrat or something like that to rename users, which I don't even want to. Please ban Cyde. ] 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Tripleye’s origins trace back to early work by Jens Schick and David Wegner as far back as 2013. Jens Schick, a pioneer in autonomous vehicle technology, built the first autonomous car at Daimler in 1994 as part of a groundbreaking project called ‘Prometheus.’ This was the first-ever autonomous vehicle, predating the 2004 DARPA challenge by a decade and marking Europe’s leading role in AV innovation.


After Daimler, Jens joined Bosch to establish its vision group from scratch and later launched Myestro Interactive, a research company focused on autonomous vehicle sensing technologies. In 2019, Jens met Francois Dubuisson, a seasoned entrepreneur with extensive experience in building startups. Recognising the transformative potential of Jens’ innovations, Francois joined forces with him to start a new venture, and Tripleye was born.
:The comments in the block log are deceptive. The admins repeatedly make overstatements and/or flat out lie there.--] 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


== Technology ==
::Admin number three here. Get it over with. --] - '']'' - ] 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Tripleye’s technology is built on a unique camera-based approach that offers unmatched visual detail, scalability, and cost efficiency compared to traditional LiDAR systems. By combining advanced computer vision and AI-driven analytics, Tripleye enables the development of fully autonomous systems and customised functionalities tailored to diverse industry needs.


With a robust foundation of patented innovations and decades of expertise, the company delivers hardware and software modules designed to outperform market competitors. This technology is ideal for industries requiring precise, adaptable, and scalable solutions.
:::Of course you listen to Cyde. You ''are'' a fucking cabal. Goodbye, then corrupt admins!--] 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


== Impact ==
::Did the three-admin-ban thing actually pass? The case was closed, but it's not clear whether the proposed decision was ever put into place. (Not that I have any objection to banning him, mind you, just curious.) ] 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Tripleye has gained significant recognition and support for its contributions to autonomous systems and intelligent machines, including:
* Funding from the European Innovation Council, which champions pioneering deep tech solutions.
* Inclusion in the NVIDIA Inception Program, an exclusive accelerator for cutting-edge AI and data science startups.


These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.
:::Who cares? He is disruptive, always has been, just block him. --] - '']'' - ] 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure. He ended up being banned outright, but for some unknown reason, he was unbanned and then continued to get into all sorts of trouble in the following months. I'm reinstating the indefinite community ban. --] 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Linuxbeak thought he could be reformed, if I recall correctly. In any case, a community ban sounds fine. ] 00:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Is there even a single test case of this working? "Reforming" just doesn't seem workable to me. This is just an Internet site; if someone is an asshole, they're going to keep being an asshole, and no mere Internet site is going to get them to reform. Seeing a psychiatrist regularly, maybe. But not this. --] 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::It has been known (there is also the issue that we have been around long enough for certain people to just grow up).] 01:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::I concur with ]. According to information he posted on Misplaced Pages, ] started contributing to Misplaced Pages last year when he was in the tenth grade. Some young people lack the maturity, discipline, and people skills to contribute to a serious collaborative project like Misplaced Pages, but they may gain these skills as they grow older. —] 01:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that you've blocked him, prepare yourselves for a flood of vandalism. He did this the couple last times he was banned or blocked for a long period. Favourite tactics include mailbombing and mass creation of user accounts. —] 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


== References ==
He's just violated ] on ] by tampering with his block template (changing it from "reviewed" to unreviewed). If his ban doesn't prevent him from editing his own page, then perhaps it should be protected. —] 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/deeptech)
* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/autonomous-vehicles-2024)
* (https://spielfelddigitalhub.medium.com/an-interview-with-tripleye-bd3b0f61080a)
</pre>
{{cob}}
:One thing worth all of us considering, when dealing with potential spammers, is that if someone is using ChatGPT, as James appears to have here, that makes it a lot harder to infer their motivation, for better and for worse. That is to say, someone could be a completely inept spammer using ChatGPT to masquerade as a moderately ] spammer, <em>or</em> could be a good-faith editor who's made the foolish decision to rely on ChatGPT and has inadvertently used a spammy tone as a result. In this case, the deletion was definitely within reason under ], but it's a good illustration of why blocking on the first offense of spam is usually overkill, unless it's like blatant link-spamming ("for the best online slots click " etc.).{{pb}}Jimfbleak, I'm wondering if you maybe have some script misconfigured, or if there's a misunderstanding on policy here, as pertains to username blocks? I noticed ] yesterday too. That user did turn out to be socking, but your initial {{tl|uw-softerblock}} didn't really make sense, as ''Onüç Kahraman'' is a film that came out in 1943, not something subject to any ongoing promotion. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Looks like they were using ], a script I also use. It is somewhat easy to select the wrong drop downs, or to use the default selections on autopilot. ] (]) 22:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I was prepared to ask the blocking admin to unblock but I wanted the user to show that they knew their text was promotional. I didn't see a username issue, but I'm not perfect so I was asking Jimfbleak what it was, if anything. ] (]) 22:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:You've been working around username issues a long time, and doing a lot of good work. I think you have the necessary experience and judgement to see that there was not a blatant violation here. I really feel like we're falling down in our treatment of new users who aren't behaving maliciously but just don't understand what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. I assure you I'm not trying to have anyone burned at the stake here, I just think we need to address these issues and be more willing to undo obviously incorrect actions without waiting as long as it takes for the admin who made the error to explain themselves. ] ] 23:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I get it, but sometimes I like to make sure that I haven't missed something. ] (]) 23:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I'll repeat something I said in {{slink|User_talk:Tamzin#Administrative_culture}}: {{tq2|I think the root problem here is with ]. It begins <q>Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators.</q> I mean. ''Fucking seriously?'' Every fucking admin knows that's a lie, because we've all had times where we deleted a page or blocked a user within seconds of looking. Usually entirely justifiably, because some deletions and blocks are just that obvious, but there's no world where that's "consider carefully". And in other cases, the lack of careful consideration ]. If an admin blocks two users as sox because they didn't know about the meme both were referencing in their usernames (actual thing I've unblocked over), they obviously did not carefully consider that block. &nbsp;...{{pb}}So I think the solution, or at least a major necessary step toward a solution, in all this, is replacing that presumption of careful consideration with something else. I'm not entirely sure what. I'm honestly not sure if we need RAAA-shielding for routine admin actions. If another admin were to see some routine vandalblock of mine and think I was hasty, and wanted to just unblock, then more power to them, as long as they're the one who wears the responsibility for whatever comes next. RAAA is useful for, say, blocks of experienced users who might have an admin-friend in the wings, or keeping people from fucking with things they mightn't understand the full story behind, like sockblocks, copyvioblocks, and socking-based page protections. But it creates a latch effect on the simplest admin actions, I think often more than even the admin intends. I think the solution starts with fixing that.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't think the allowed actions in ] are all that problematic, though I do agree with you about the presumptions in the preamble. You can reverse if the following are met:
*:::# Good cause
*:::# Careful thought
*:::# ''If the admin is '''presently''' available'': consultation. So shoot them a message, and if they don't respond within a reasonably short period of time, proceed anyway
*:::Those three steps are not very restrictive. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::They might not be very restrictive in theory, but they are in practice. It's far easier to get desysopped for a bad unblock than for a bad block. In effect the rule becomes that you need to not just try to talk with the admin, but actually need their permission. That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy. Or to put it more simply: We can't all be Beeblebrox. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Thank god for Beeblebrox then... We can't have all the admins form a ]... Somebody has to be the "bad brick" for the larger society to function. ] (]) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::{{tqb|That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy.}}Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to having this become a policy. Of course, there should be some latitude for the blocking admin's discretion, but a block with no ] explanation should be able to be reverted by another admin. ] (] · ]) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::We've had a parallel to this idea in deletion policy (]) for like forever, and the world's stubbornly refused to end. I do worry somewhat about the effect it'd have with ]. —] 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::As one of the relative newbies around here, I've kind of assumed that the RAAA thing with unblocks is a hangover from the Bad Old Days of wandering cowboy admins who needed rules like this to keep the wheel-warring in check. I don't tend to mind following this gentlemen's agreement, since I value the second look. But it's the admins who make the bad blocks that are also the least likely to be affable about you lifting them. Then we end up with the problem Tamzin's described. -- ] (]) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*It's great to welcome new users and assume good faith, but Misplaced Pages will be neck-deep in spam if junk like the above is not handled firmly. If I had seen it, I would have ground my teeth and moved on because why should I get heaps from people who think there is value in "{{tq|These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.}}" There is more and more of this stuff, and soon people will be able to ask an AI bot to author and post their fluff on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Literally nobody is arguing that the page was acceptable or that the deletion was incorrect. The issue is the subsequent block and making the user wait, blocked, until it was convenient for the blocking admin to respond. If you found yourself blocked for reasons that were manifestly incorrect, would you not expect and hope that reviewing admins would reverse it? ] ] 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If I had been the user who posted that advert as their first edit, I would know why I had been blocked. ] (]) 02:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::You seem to be entirely missing the point that this was an indef hard block because of the supposed combination of promotional edits ''and'' a promotional username, when there is literally no issue of any kind with the user name. We can AGF that this was simply an misclick, but we shouldn't pretend there is a real issue with the name because of it. ] ] 04:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*FWIW, I try to educate users as to why I have deleted their hard work with ] or ]. For the most part, I prefer to give them the opportunity to mend their ways in the context of ]. ''Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out.'' It is important to try to facilitate that emergence, though sometimes a block is required to do so.] (]) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::I want to second that ''Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out.'' (well, perhaps a slightly modified ''Inside every disruptive editor is potentially a constructive editor trying to get out.'') One of the people brought on to talk about wikipedia in a recent ] piece described a vandal to core editor conversion sparked in part by effective and positive engagement on their talk page. ] (]) 02:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I do think we, and I include myself here, have gotten too hardcore about blocking over one or two promo edits, in particular when they aren't even in article space. I'm working on some proposals to address this right now. ] ] 04:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Something that reiterates "we tell new users that their sandbox is for screwing around, don't CSD them for screwing around in it" would be hugely welcome. -- ] (]) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just spent a few minutes chasing my tail looking for anything that makes it clear where the line is, and all I came up with is that you can't have attack content, copyvios, or other types of "not acceptable anywhere, period type of content. I didn't see anything about promotional content in sandboxes. If I've missed it somehow, someone please let me know where it is. ] ] 05:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tl|Db-spamuser}} covers userpages, which I guess personal sandboxes are a subset of, that's all I could find. ] ] 05:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, there isn't anything clearly explaining where the line is, that's my point. I've seen quite a lot of "good faith" promo editing tagged for G11/U5 in sandboxes, editors blocked for having promo there, etc etc. I'll happily do the promo username+edits blocks or vaporize chatGPT nonsense, but deleting/blocking someone for sandbox edits when the template right in front of their eyes says it's for experimentation is really over-the-top bitey, imo. -- ] (]) 06:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe it's time we '''warn''' these users that sandboxes are not a completely safe haven to test whatever they want, because as I see it, the ] did not bring up the reasons why one edits in the sandbox might be deleted (whether from U5 or G11 or sth else). ]<sup>(])</sup> 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Please think about the long-term consequences of a rule saying that anyone can post anything so long as it is in their user space, or marked as "sandbox" or whatever. Will we wait a year to see if an SPA refashions their spam into an FA, then (if not) add a delete request tag, then discuss the deletion request? That won't scale. ] (]) 05:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Are you ok? I honestly can't tell what point you are trying to make. ] ] 06:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It seems pretty clear to me: it's potentially a gate to letting spam "articles" stick around 'because they're in sandboxes'. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If a sandbox is ''clearly'' G11, and IMHO we've become overly inclusive of any COI editing as G11, then it should be deleted. But the creator needs to be educated as to ''why.'' And yes, I share the concern about people using Misplaced Pages for promotion, and I know some would leap at any loophole. ] (]) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{yo|Beeblebrox}} Ah, yes. The Ghost of Wheel-Wars Past. Before my time really, but you can still hear the chains rattle after nearly two decades. ] (]) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::As {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} correctly surmised, I use Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage script, and I'm aware that it's easy to select the wrong drop down, so I always check. However, it appears that in this case I still managed to fat finger an obviously incorrect rationale, ''mea culpa'', I can only apologise for that. I don't think that the G11 was incorrect, there's no policy that exempts spamming in userspace. I intended to block the account as being likely an UPE, given that their first edit was a full, highly promotional page about a company, and then left it for uninvolved admins to review the block. If asked, I always accept the reviewing admin's decision unless, rarely, they have missed something like socking or previous malpractice. I apologise again for the error I made, although I can't help thinking it could have been sorted out on my talk page rather than through ANI ] - ] 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I frankly agree. This didn't need to be brought here. He made a mistake- apparently I made a mistake by asking him to confirm that he made a mistake(even though clicking unblock bring up a clear message '''"Unless you imposed the block, you may not unblock any accounts you control (including bots) without permission from the blocking administrator, even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error'''") okay. We'll do better next time. ] (]) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I realize that's for "accounts you control" but clearly there's some intention here that we need to consult with the blocking admin in general. ] (]) 09:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Policy does state "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." So does this mean I shouldn't ask to confirm that the blocking admin made a mistake? We also prohibit wheel-warring. ] (]) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Theres a lot to unpack here. First, what you quote is about admins unblocking themselves, nothing related to this situation. It is not a statement on asking the blocking admin. Then you quote policy stating specifically in cases or error just unblock and that it is polite to ask, not required. Seems pretty straightforward. ] (]) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes, I was in error with the first part. But I do value being polite and making sure I don't make a mistake. ] (]) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Polite to the admin, even if clearly in the wrong, is a disservice to the user unfairly blocked. That kind of gets to the whole point of this tread. ] (]) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::If we're saying that a temporary disservice to doublecheck my thinking and have a little civility is bad, okay, but that puts me at risk of being accused of wheel warring/unblocking people who shouldn't be. So I should err on that side? (a serious question) ] (]) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{reply|331dot}} as it's the second time you've expressed concern re. wheel-warring; to clarify, unblocking someone doesn't qualify. If another admin came along and ''re''blocked them, ''that'' would be WW. Good luck with all this, too. ]'']''] 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::And I reiterate it would have been better to approach me with a nice "hey, I think you would have been okay unblocking here" rather than coming here. My talk page is very public. ] (]) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*On a related note, I think we need to sit down with ] and ] and decide which one (1) of them we will be hard-assed blockhawks about. It is absurdly, unbelievably dumb to do so for both -- noobs ''trying to do volunteer work'' seem to currently have the choice between being instantly screamed at for not knowing how markup works and being instantly screamed at for being sockpuppets. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:hear ye, hear ye, jpxg speaks the truth!... ] (]) 21:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*"we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page" - We do too, if the one sandbox page is awful enough. I would've blocked too. I like to think I never would've misclicked the wrong rationale while blocking, but we're not all dextrous, typo-immune college students. That calls for a correction in the rationale (probably on the talk page rather than unblocking and reblocking), not a reversal. Same as seeing someone make a typo in mainspace calls for fixing the typo, not a rollback of the entire edit.{{pb}}There's a couple comments above to the effect that this person might have become a productive Wikipedian if only we hadn't blocked them after deleting their ad. I say you're full of it. People who start out as vandals may, very rarely, eventually become productive Wikipedians - there's been a handful of admitted examples of people "hacking Misplaced Pages for the lulz" in middle school and making amends five or ten years later, and no doubt there's been many more silent reincarnations. But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. —] 11:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I vandalized Misplaced Pages with my European history class in high school, and I've got my entire editing career since. I'd say you might want to rethink your attitude. It costs very little for established users to offer grace to newbies, because without a doubt those established users are only still on Misplaced Pages because some grace was offered to them when'' they'' were new. The attitude displayed by some in this thread suggests that , because who just ''knows'' wiki syntax and uses edit summaries immediately? ''Very suspicious''.
*:"They would never have become a productive Wikipedian" is an easy position to take when you never offer the ''possibility'' to become one. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::There's a difference between vandalizing Misplaced Pages for S & Gs as a teenager(for which I've given several new chances at editing for such people) and knowingly posting marketing material(the main point {{u|Cryptic}} refers to). ] (]) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ec}}As I said, there is a world of difference between casual vandalism and commercial promotion. The one is reformable, and has been shown to be reformable. The other is not. High school students don't write credible marketing brochures in history class. —] 12:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::People don't understand our notability criteria, let alone our rules about promotional content. Blocking someone for not understanding arcane rules you haven't explained is not functionally any different than any other vandalism. And you can respond to my comment, 331dot, but not to ]'s collections of your bad judgement? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::If people are looking for the perfect admin that's not me. I make mistakes and try to learn from them. I'm not sure what should say beyond that. If GLL has concerns about me I wish they would bring them to me directly. ] (]) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I fail to see how {{tq|"331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined"}} is not bringing concerns to you directly, in a discussion you have been notified of. Was it the lack of ping? The assumption is your involvement in this thread should be enough, and being repeatedly pinged <s>would</s> could be over-pinging. ] (]) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} By "directly" I mean to my user talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::]: I cannot speak for 331dot, but I would have preferred if Beeblerox had first brought this concern to me on my talk page rather than bringing it directly to ANI. ] (]) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::@] @]. Respectfully, this doesn't concern only the two of you, and the idea of three parallel discussions occurring on different talk pages doesn't lead to structured discussion, hence it's centralized here. This discussion also goes beyond the conduct of certain admins, and instead is intended to be a broader discussion over admin conduct etc, so it appears correctly located to me. I understand the concept of approaching admins directly on talk pages etc, but this isn't a case of a single issue with a single admin. ] (]) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Including myself, there are four admins involved here. Seems like a central discussion is appropriate to me to air this out. Not to nitpick, but this is AN, not ANI. There is a difference. ] ] 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::And presumably you have sufficient evidence to back up that sweeping assertion? The idea that any class of editor is entirely and utterly not reformable strikes me as wrong (if not a top level AGF violation). ] (]) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::If you can find a commercial promoter who has, I would be genuinely very interested to see it. -- ] (]) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor... I don't actually know of many reformed editors overall but I have seen racists reform their views and become valuable editors where they were once ] style knuckle draggers. I don't however see why someone who first learns to edit wikipedia inappropriately for work would be incapable of becoming a productive wikipedia editor after leaving that job for one which doesn't involve wikipedia. I would imagine however that such an editor would ], rendering my point somewhat moot. ] (]) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{tq|I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor}} me too, that's why I'd be very interested to see evidence of a commercial promoter who has become a good general contributor. We've got plenty of people who will admit to having been teenage vandals, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who edited for their job and then became a regular editor. -- ] (]) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Agree with this overall assessment, even if it is hard to swallow: if racists can change editing behaviour, then so can anyone. I think clean start would only usually apply if blocked. If the user remains able to edit, there wouldn't be much of a reason to create a new account. You underestimate the point you made. ] (]) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*: {{tq| But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so}}. I present {{u|JohnCWiesenthal}} as a counterexample. {{pb}} Despite that, I agree with the general sentiment being expressed there. ] ] 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I cannot see any similarity between that editor's contributions and the user being discussed here. I just looked at some of their first edits, and the first edits at {{no redirect|IntelliStar}} which was mentioned in the block reason. There was no comparison with the current case. ] (]) 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* I see a difference between a page that is "promotional" and a page that is "advertising". The content here was promotional in tone; {{tq|Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems}} is sufficient example of that. But it was not advertising. There was no list of products for sale, no prices, no "call this phone number to order". For ''advertising'' of that nature, blocking after a single creation in a sandbox seems reasonable. In this case, it seems excessive; although 82james82 clearly needs guidance for how to proceed in the project. ] (]) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:RFC on some of the issues raised here is now live at ]. ] ] 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking ===
:Done. ] 00:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
* Having read this discussion, I wanted to provide an example of how issues such as those raised can also lead to deterring users from reporting others. Apologies for the length of comment, but the point is predominantly in the context here. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. This is my personal feeling/opinion based on recently reporting a user for the first time, in a situation where there is a very high possibility that the editor becomes an (exclusively) constructive contributor, rather than regularly disruptive. The specifics of the example isn't the point, only that I almost certainly would have reported earlier if not seriously concerned that the user would fail to "prove" they were worthy for an unblock. Fortunately I had a very competent and understanding admin deal with the case and there wasn't even the pedanticism of an official unblock request (as is expected, or even required?) which was refreshing, but rather a simple back and fourth discussion, and the bar for the unblock was ], exactly as I'd hoped. For me this was a huge relief, as I'm a strong believer that even if only 1-10% of editors unblocked go on to become constructive contributors, then this is a huge number of potential useful editors, many of whom are here today no doubt. I'd be a lot more inclined to report serious issues rather than ignore if it were more common or possible for admins to override rejections of unblocks, or otherwise set lower bars for unblocks when applicable (that's subjective, I know). Maybe I've misinterpreted the examples above and my own, but I do wonder how many other users feel similar, those who shy away from noticeboards when possible, and don't want to be responsible for a user being indeffed due to failure to research and understand every policy and guideline that's ever existed in order to satisfy a request. I'm also aware of the cost/benefit scenario in the opposite direction, that of users being unblocked too easily leading to more serious issues down the line, but I do also think the balance could be better achieved overall. ] (]) 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:We get loads of people adding the same copy they use for user pages on LinkedIn, Facebook etc. That's all they are here for. When they ask to be unblocked we ask them what they want to edit about, and it's still their employer. ] (]) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? ] (]) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Well I intended it as a response to you. I accept I skimmed your comment as it was long. I was trying to explain that most spam blocks are clear cut. I wouldn't have blocked the one this thread was about, and I regularly reject requests to block people. ] (]) 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Apologies for the cryptic example then, has nothing to do with spam blocking. My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. ] (]) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I do really worry about this, partly for the reasons you describe and partly because I think it sets people up to either become unblockable or the receiver of a really rough reality check once they stop flying under the radar. (Currently dealing with an unblock request from someone who fell into the latter category, then ruined their chances of a quick return by socking - not an ideal trajectory.) I know this doesn't really address the broader cultural issues, but when you're dealing with someone like that, it's hugely helpful if you can get them to understand what they did wrong that led to the block. The more of that that happens, the more likely their appeal is to be accepted. Part of the work of making unblocks a kinder process can be done (and done more effectively, imo) by non-admins. If you do this and get yelled at by some other admin, feel free to blame/call on me. -- ] (]) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also, if you do this kind of thing, you're inevitably going to run into someone who is completely unhelpable at the present time. This can be really hard to disentangle yourself from, emotionally and from a sunk-costs kind of perspective. I think it's harder for admins actually, since admins are bound by ] and a non-admin is free to give up so long as they maintain basic civility while they do so. Forewarned is forearmed, but also, if you get trapped in a hopeless situation like that and need someone to be the Mean One who bails you out, I'm happy to do that too. -- ] (]) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::In this specific case, the user was blocked for a combination of spamming and a username violation, which was an obvious error. They were still blocked for it for three days after explicitly asking in an unblock requests what was wrong with their name. That's miles away from the scenario you are describing. ] ] 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged. {{tq|I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others.}} -- ] (]) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Or, better, {{tq|My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question.}} -- ] (]) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::@] probably referencing directly what I'm talking about in future would help, apologies for any confusion here. My long-winded comment was effectively in support of the concerns you raised, even if somewhat indirectly or more broadly, and asilvering was merely providing some alternative context that is also relevant, even if not necessarily to the broader discussion in question. The quotes above should cover this, as well as potentially {{tq|"The specifics of the example isn't the point,..."}}. ] (]) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Thanks, I'll bare it in mind and appreciate the context you provided. The example of a blocked user turning sock is all too common I imagine, and 100% agree can be more likely avoided with more non-admin warnings (if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here). With my example above, the user was warned numerous times by non-admins and presumably thought it was "all talk" rather than reality (ie, being warned about being blocked, but never actually being blocked). This is also what happens when you spend a year warning a user and not taking the situation further based on the concerns raised above. Anyway, I digress as per often. I'm far from shy from sending warning templates to users (in fact I do so religiously, because usually it works). So the editors' ability to be unblocked was handed to them on a plate already, as intended, with the admin simply reminding them of the plate they had been given previously. Without these warnings, they quite possibly would have been left in the dark to research every policy and guideline that's ever existed to in order to determine whether that was the reason for a block, which is thoroughly unrealistic. At least, this can be the case, even if not so often I realise. Even knowing there is an admin or two I could ping into a discussion, that understand my POV, would be a huge benefit in future. Without intending to sound rude to admins here, going to a noticeboard is an awful lottery system that I try and avoid at all costs unless completely desperate. And hopefully, this context can be understood within the discussion in question, that of never wanting potentially useful editors permanently blocked unnecessarily. Which I've noticed can be as simple as failure to format an unblock request 🤮 ] (]) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here}} - in this case I brought up the socking simply to illustrate how someone who gets blocked can end up blocked for a ''long'' time, much longer than should have been necessary. That's always going to be a possibility if you report someone, and it's not your fault. Sometimes people make bad choices, doesn't matter what you do. -- ] (]) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Agreed, no one is at fault when reporting editors based on the outcome, ever, but I see it as being partly responsible none the less (as the instigator of the outcome). No one is immune to the outcomes that they have caused fundamentally, even if they are not to blame. Ie if I become partly responsible for an editor being blocked for too long, it's a solid good reason not to report users in future, based on basic <s>]</s> ]. Even if I'm not implementing a bad admin action, I would remain the cause of such an action per ] and remaining ]. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* I'll start by saying that, absent some sort of specific statement about why that particular block reason was selected, I too am a bit baffled for choosing that reason. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time getting too excited about the indef block of an account that, by their own admission, was intending to write promotional articles about companies that don't come close to meeting our notability criteria, while using Misplaced Pages as a springboard to return to their career path. What I am seeing here is more a reason to *change the block reason* rather than a reason to unblock. Any admin can reblock with a more correct block message without getting into the whole "well, you need permission from the original blocking admin" stuff, which isn't actually material when any admin could have reblocked with a different block message. ] (]) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


Looking through 331dot declining unblocks reveals quite a few instances where either 331dot or the blocking admin takes an extremely newbie-unfriendly approach:
I have been JarlaxleArtemis' principle mentor for the last several months. During that time there have been many complaints and instances of JA repeating the specific behaviors which led to his previous bannings. Since this new ban has been placed on him he has once again acted in an immature manner. His negative inputs have exceeded his positive contributions, and I regret having to endorse this ban. -] 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*] has now been unblocked by Philknight, but the approach by 331dot was not very helpful or newbie-friendly
*]: no warnings, immediate indef block by ] for a misguided edit (not vandalism, just auto-promo): no idea why a warning wasn't tried first
*], no warning, immediate indef block by ], reasonable unblock request, denied by 331dot. This is the apparently unforgiveable, no warnings needed edit.
*], I can understand their frustration, I don't see the "blatant spam" they were posting, they were posting references with relevant information, but these included commercial websites as well as neutral ones. I don't see any company they tried to promote, no spam text, ... just a helpful editor who hasn't yet given up on editing here despite a way too harsh block by ] and an unhelpful unblock decline by 331dot
*] incorrect sock block, unblocked thanks to PhilKnight, but previous interactions with 331dot, including a declined unblock, were again rather unhelpful, just blindly believing that the block has to be correct


These are all from this month, from spotchecking some of their declined unblocks (a number of other declines were perfectly allright). ] (]) 10:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Copied from ] ==
:I blocked based on ] combined with promotional edit. Name represents a website that functions to generate income and the user posted a link to the site. Is that kind of block incorrect? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Name of website (blog) is name of actual person, DJ Martin Dus. Link they posted was informative and relevant. The reaction to this is not some gentle steering towards "perhaps better a new username" (dubious if that was even necessary) and "please don't post links to your own blog", but an immediate indef block, and a declined unblock with a request for basically a complete plan for their future editing career. Apparently their error was much more heinous than someone posting blatant vandalism, who gets 3 or 4 chances before being blocked, and first gets clear warnings that it will happen. ] (]) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] it was well within the bounds of policy and reason but the name could be a stage name whuch changes the equation slightly. Ask 100 different admins, you'll get 100 different answers.
::I stand by my block of PaulSem based on the information I had at the time but my threshold for undoing my ''own'' block is essentially a coherent appeal or promise not to repeat the problem action so I've unblocked now I've seen that they appealed. That's not a criticism of 331dot because my standard for reversing ''another'' admin's action is much higher. ] &#124; ] 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the unblock, but I really don't see why that editor didn't just warrant some guidance, at worst warnings, for some of the links they included. I may well have missed it, but their latest edit added , which you reverted, after which you blocked. ] (]) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::If the edit wasn't promotional enough for you to even revert, it probably wasn't blatant enough to call for a block. Or to turn it around, this is like when I see another admin tag all of a user's creations as spam, or vandalism, or even attack pages instead of deleting them themselves; and after I delete the pages and go to deal with the user, I find that the same admin had already blocked. How can you be confident enough to indef a user while still being unsure enough about their content - the ''reason you blocked them'' - that you need confirmation from another admin? —] 16:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The lack of reversion was an error on my part. However, I do acknowledge that I had only seen the name as the name of a website, and not also as a stage name. I have been slow on reversing the block after seeing the objection raised here, because one of the lessons I learned from a previous block that I posted on this page requesting review, showed that acting too quickly on an objection can create havoc, when the objection —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Itself becomes controversial. (I am on flaky connection right now, sorry for the broken up message). Will unblock, revert edit, and discuss either user. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Cryptic}}, I see things somewhat differently, and I am among the administrators who often block for promotional username/promotional editing and then tag the content, usually G11, for review by another administrator, under the principle that two heads are better than one. In my mind, it is a check on myself to help prevent me from becoming too stringent and if another administrator questions my tag or my block, that helps me adhere to community norms. ] (]) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::So, what, you see a promotional page being made, figure it's bad enough to block the creator, but aren't sure it's worth deleting? What do you do if the deletion's declined? Leave the user blocked, even though what they wrote was acceptable? Unblock? How do you rationalize ''either'' of those outcomes as ok? —] 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Cryptic}}, the answer is clear to me but I will spell it out for you. If another administator disagrees with my assessment that the content in question should be deleted (or that the editor should have been blocked), then that administator and I would have a conversation. That could lead to content being draftified instead of being deleted. It could lead to a hard block being converted to a soft block. It could result in me concluding that I misunderstood and unblocking with an apology. It would not result in me ignoring the situation and leaving a contradictory outcome unresolved. As I said, I believe that two heads are better than one and I do not recall any other admimstrator chastising me with, "you should have deleted that spam yourself!". ] (]) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@]: Why not tag the page for deletion, then warn the user? ] (]) 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Significa liberdade}}, because I am an administator and overtly promotional usernames are not permitted and call for a block. And an account with an overtly promotional username combined with creation of overtly promotional content calls for a hard block. I do not engage in friendly negotiations with spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia. ] (]) 03:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::]: Apologies, on a re-read I realized you mentioned username+promo. I thought you were just talking about a new editor creating promotional pages. ] (]) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::And Cullen is of course correct by our current policies and practices. That's where I think the problem lies, not with individual admins but with the guidance provided to them, which I have been following for years myself. I do think {{tq|spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia}} is going a bit far in many cases and we need to try warning and education as a tool of first resort, as we do with vandals, instead of jumping straight to a block. I am very willing to delete spam, but I have come to believe that the no-warning blocking is not really productive or fair. ] ] 03:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:The best solution might be the simplest one: we need some new blood dealing with blocks and unblocks. Either admins who work in other areas should pay some attention to this, or new admins with a newbie-advocate philosophy need to be given the tools to work on block appeals. ...any volunteers? ] (]) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Not an admin myself, but I'm always happy to help give advice to users making block appeals, and to make sure they're on the right track! ] (] · ]) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] is one of those newbie-advocate types who has taken up this work recently, and I've been on it as well. It needs as much new blood as it can get. It's also really helpful for non-admins who know their way around to help out the ones who have clearly misunderstood something (eg, someone blocked for copyright, a promo editor who needs to agree to abide by paid disclosure, etc). -- ] (]) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Happy to help. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


Help is surely needed, as the usual suspects just continue in the same vein, e.g. with ]. That editor needed warnings and guidance, not an indef block and and a declined unblock. No idea why was reverted, and while their addition was a promo link, it's hard to find fault with the reasoning from their edit summary. 5 Edits of which 2 were good and 3 promolinks but relevant and understandable = no warnings and indef block? Gee, I wonder why we have such a hard time finding new editors. ] (]) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The following was a few minutes ago at the Vandalism talk page by an unregistered user:


Are there deleted edits or something else I can't see here, there's nothing further in the filter log? ] makes two edits on the 11th, gets warned (okay), makes no further edits, and gets blocked indef a full week later on the 18th by ]. Why??? ] (]) 18:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Someone in Deffective By Design suggested a "wikipedia-bombing" on October 3rd, to change all occurrences from "Digital rights Management" to "Digital RESTRICTIONS Management". Although I am completely against DRM, and think that DbD has some interesting ideas, this one in particular would cause more harm than good. I think the DRM article should be watched to avoid edit wars and vandalism.
:There are no deleted contributions. — ] (]) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- ] (]) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically {{tq|someone making a living by backlinking a website for a client}}and not just someone who is ignorant of Misplaced Pages policy. How are they supposed to learn if the first interaction they have with another Wikipedian is "you are already blocked, because you are a malicious spammer." and their second interaction is "you haven't immediately fully comprehended Misplaced Pages's policy on promotional edits so NOPE." I'm surprised the even made a second appeal. ] ] 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*We need to recognize that we're in an era in which WP:ROPE doesn't really work for Spam/UPE, even though it continues to apply for other forms of disruption. The cost in editor time of monitoring the contributions of a suspected paid editor after an unblock or warning are very high, because often the edits are benign on the face of it: whereas I have no qualms about warning an editor at AIV, because I know they'll be back if they vandalize again. I haven't looked into the specifics of the cases here, and am not intending to justify them, but we need to recognize that if we want to make it easier to unblock editors suspected of UPE, or to encourage admins to warn for a first offence, a starting point might be making it easier to monitor the contributions of these editors. ] (]) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:An alternative could be ROPE + topic ban? As in, we give them a second chance, but if they go back to editing about the company/etc. they were promoting (or something broadly related to it), even if the edits themselves are innocuous, reblock. ] (] · ]) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ] (]) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::True, I was only considering cases where the UPE was obvious (example: writing about a company in marketing jargon) rather than cases based on private evidence. ] (] · ]) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It also doesn't change the difficulty of monitoring. It still means someone who knows of the concerns needs to check ''every subsequent edit'' manually for issues: new editors often don't understand a TBAN, and a dedicated spammer is unlikely to want to follow the rules in the first place. I'm just spit-balling here, but wondering if an admin were able to add a flag to an editor's subsequent edits that would tell patrollers what the concern was. That feels somewhat big-brother-esque, but perhaps we'd be more willing to give rope in that case? ] (]) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I know a generic "watchlist this user's edits" isn't a good idea, but enabling it specifically for users you unblocked could definitely be helpful. ] (] · ]) 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@], I think that's exactly the sort of thing @] is saying is too much work when it comes to dedicated spammers. I keep an eye on the people I've rope-unblocked, but I couldn't do that at the rate that HJM does spam blocks, for example. Maybe he ''shouldn't'' be doing that many spam blocks; I don't know the circumstances enough to say so. -- ] (]) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yep, it could be good to find a way to distribute this workload, and Vanamonde's idea might be better for that purpose. Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful, but would need to be workshopped to find a middle ground between a mark of shame and total invisibility. ] (] · ]) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::There's a potentially good idea in there somewhere. In at least one of the cases above I might have held off on a block if I could have flagged all their edits for closer scrutiny by patrollers. ] &#124; ] 19:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::{{ping|Novem Linguae}} as the first technically minded admin I thought of, is this even within the realms of feasibility? ] (]) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::{{tq|watchlist this user's edits}}. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to ] concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.
*::::::::{{tq|Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful}}. A user script could be written that runs itself on pages such as recent changes, the watchlist, and article histories, and highlights edits by users that have been added to a wiki page containing a list of users to highlight. Or highlights edits by users who have been unblocked within the last month. So yeah, that's technically possible. ] is a good place to request user scripts if y'all decide to go that route. –] <small>(])</small> 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::{{tqb|{{tq|watchlist this user's edits}}. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to ] concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.}}Yep, which is why I thought limiting its availability to admins watchlisting users they personally unblocked could mitigate the ] risks. Even more if it's limited to unblocks from the last, say, 30 days (although giving a specific timeframe might be an incentive for these editors to just wait it out, so a specific number of edits that will show up on the watchlist might be better).{{pb}}For your second point, a script could very much be feasible. I think there's a way to retrieve a user's logs by script to check the date of their last unblock, and from there it's just like an admin/etc. highlighter script. I might do it actually, if I find the time for it (and everyone, feel free to remind me if it looks like I'm forgetting!) ] (] · ]) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::For reference, see ]. ] (]) 06:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


====Examples: HJ Mitchell====
:here is the to the Deffective By Design site.
{{ping|HJ Mitchell}}, per ], can you please explain why you blocked ] despite there being no edits between the warning they received for their first two edits, and your block a week later? ] (]) 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:HJMitchell addresses some thinking behind the block in ]. Best, ] (]) 11:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, but the same happens with other editors as well. ], warned on 11 December, one edit (not constructive but not problematic either) to their own user page the same day, suddenly blocked a week later? Nothing in the filter log, no deleted pages. If it was a sock, an indication in the block log would help. ] (]) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That one was reported to AIV (which is where most of my blocks come from) late last night. I misread the timestamps and hadn't realised they were a week old but didn't see anything to be gained by unblocking. ] &#124; ] 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*]: none of their edits after their one vandalism warning were reverted, they seemed like a good faith editor, but still you indef blocked them. ] (]) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:That one came to AIV for triggering filters five times in five minutes. They were repeatedly blanking an article section by section. ] &#124; ] 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Except they weren't, after the warning they removed or merged sections ''once'' and then proceeded to add (at first glance acceptable) sources to the same article. They were a good faith editor trying to improve an article, probably making errors along the way. ] (]) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::This is very bizarre. They're blocked for vandalism, yet not a single one of their edits has been reverted. @], could you please have another look at this block? – ] 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@] (and anyone else interested) perhaps that one was a mistake. I've unblocked. ] &#124; ] 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Thank you for your introspection and revert. ] (]) 17:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*Why is this here and not on the user's talk page? If you have a concern with an individual user, as is the case here, you should first try to resolve your issues with the individual user. That's step one of dispute resolution. ] (]) 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree. I think this whole section should be closed and discussion moved there.
*: Somehow, I don't think that: ''"But we think our torches and pitchforks will be more effective here"'', is (or should be) a valid reason to skip steps in ] in this case. - and that's about as much AGF as I think I can give in this instance. Regardless of initial intent, this is starting to come across as a ]. The appearance of which would seem to be undermining whatever goals that those concerned may have. - <b>]</b> 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::To those concerned, it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue. That is, in itself, a valid perspective. Class-borne exasperation is not itself collective discrimination or punishment.
*::If you are implying this is shaping up to be a witch hunt, I have yet to see instances of magical thinking or confessions produced under torture. Instead, I see reasonable evidence for users' interrelated, reasonable concerns. Are people on WPO rude? Yes, and I see no bad faith in their incivility here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Not seen as magical thinking or torture? Welcome to ] : )
*:::And your comments do not address that this should have been - and should be - carried out on the admin's talk page, as ] noted. - <b>]</b> 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Remsense's comment directly addressed that, e.g. {{tqq|it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue}} and {{tqq|interrelated, reasonable concerns}}. ] (]) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Looks at the thread title ("Examples: HJ Mitchell"), and your and their comments. Uh huh, sure. Care to try again? - <b>]</b> 23:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Remsense's comment directly addressed whether this should be carried out on the admin's talk page, by using words such as {{tqq|not ... individualized}} and {{tqq|interrelated}}. ] (]) 23:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse most blocks; unblock Anushka Sweety Shetty'''. Procedurally, the OP should have discussed on talk with the user directly first; but setting that aside. For the first example, these are obviously low quality spam external links. All blocks are reversible given a block appeal. This is clearly bread and butter admin blocking and within discretion, and helps keep the quality of the encyclopedia high that we use discretion to quickly dispatch obvious troublemakers and spammers. The blocking policy is not a strict legal document, but a set of guidelines. The norms and practices should be followed, but not religiously. This seems like a good example where the logic is sound and where the action can be reversed easily if someone legit gets hit by a block, but it seems to me that this is just promotional spam. As to the second block, the account was evidently a vandalism-only account. We don't require warnings for this, AFAIK. Finally, I do think that Anushka Sweety Shetty was accidentally mis-tagged as vandalism, and should be unblocked unless there's a good reason that I don't understand. However, one mistake is not a big deal and can be easily reversed. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


====Examples: 331dot====
{{ping|331dot}} per ], can you please explain why you declined the unblock of good faith editor ]? It seems that they needed guidance, not blocking in the first place, and certainly not a declined unblock with a rather unfriendly, unhelpful message. ] (]) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what it was that was "unfriendly" about my message. I try to be matter of fact and succinct, perhaps that comes across as unfriendly, but I'm not trying to be. As the blocking admin said when they removed the block, "we don't link to sites that sell things". That's spam. I was looking for some understanding of that point. Perhaps I shouldn't have closed it, but we've had a massive backlog most of this year and I was trying to keep it down. ] (]) 10:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"we don't link to sites that sell things" except that we do this all the time of course. This was very clearly a good faith editor (their last edit before the block was ), not some editor interested in adding spam. Your reply "You were posting blatant spam, the issue is not poor references." was clearly wrong, and the editor just needed an explanation of why something like is not an acceptable source, even if it was added to be helpful and not as "blatant spam". Trying to keep down a backlog is not an excuse to deny good-faith editors their chance to edit and improve along the way because you don't have the time to actually look at what happened. ] (]) 10:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you're trying to offend me, it's working. I did look at what happened. Say you disagree, say I was wrong, fine. If you want the perfect admin, that's not me. But don't tell me I did things that I didn't do. ] (]) 10:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::So you looked at what happened, and ''still'' called this "blatant spam" and sufficient to decline an unblock? Then we are approaching ] territory, as you seem to be having too many of these situations. I also linked above to ], who was incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry. I presume you looked into what happened when you declined the unblock with "I think that the reason for the block is correct. " or then continued to be extremely unhelpful by countering "If you could please check my edit history, you would see that I haven't done anything malicious." with "Your making edits is in and of itself malicious as you are evading blocks." They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment. ] (]) 10:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Please tell me what the acceptable level of mistakes is so I know never to make too many. I never said anyone wasn't sincere. I didn't have access to all the information. You are assigning motives to me that I simply don't have and I don't know why you, a former admin, have it out for me. Merry Christmas. ] (]) 10:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@] Please familiarize yourself with ]. ] (]) 16:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I am very familiar with it, thank you. ] (]) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I wasn't rude. I categorically, totally, in the strongest terms, reject that claim. ] (]) 10:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Okay, let's leave the rudeness matter to the side for a while. Tone is hard to convey on the internet. Let's also not accuse other editors of having it out for anybody, because when in the history of Misplaced Pages has that ever gone well?{{pb}}Just to try and steer things back on course, @], could you explain why you chose not to accept the unblock requests I posted a few days ago? And the others that Fram posted? I think understanding what your reasoning was when declining these unblocks, especially those of users such as Pbnjb1 and Cwootten13, will be useful for everybody. Mistakes are fine, but, and as an admin who monitors the unblock queue, you know this better than most, what other people want to see is genuine reflection and understanding. What went wrong in these, and what's going to happen differently next time? ] (]) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I'm sorry but it's hard to be told I'm doing things that I'm not doing.
*::::::* The user said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices. I would like to continue editing Misplaced Pages and request to be unblocked." They said they hadn't reviewed policies yet, and they didn't say what edits they wished to make, both of which would indicate their understanding of the reasons for the block. Quite often people say they understand when they actually don't. Yes, blocks are cheap, but trying to avoid repeat blocks is good both for the appellant and us. Nothing nefarious, nothing rude. Happy to hear what specifically I should have done differently.
*::::::* I said "If you lose track of which account you are using, you should stick to a single account." I didn't say it was an inappropriate use. They also incorrectly said a personal attack was made against them.
*::::::I'm happy to discuss other things with you but I fear drawing this discussion out more than it already is. ] (]) 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Okay. Here we go.
*:::::::You selectively quoted Pbnjb1 there - which, I mean, I selectively quoted you so I can't get too mad. But they also wrote {{tq|I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.}}
*:::::::They very obviously demonstrated that they understood the relevant policies and had read them. How much clearer did you want them to be....? Please, elaborate
*:::::::Additionally, I don't think anybody who has seen that block has understood why it was made, because we don't do instant 4im warnings and indefs for newbies adding redcats. I don't know why you've expecting a new user to have to have understood something seasoned admins and editors are scratching their heads over. I concur with you about repeat blocks- they're bad for everybody's moral. But accusing other users of not having read policies <em>when they tell you information they could have only learnt by reading the policy?</em> I don't know what to say here.
*:::::::For the next decline- you selectively quoted yourself. {{tq|this makes it seem like you are multiple people}}. That's inappropriate use. You did accuse them of inappropriately using multiple accounts. Again, I don't know what to say. ] (]) 11:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Well, they said they read it and then said they didn't- what should I believe? A contradiction would suggest they didn't- but okay, I screwed up.
*::::::::I was trying to tell them why people ''thought'' they were using them inappropriately. I guess I failed at that. ] (]) 11:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::"{{tq|then said they didn't}}" Please, back this up with a quote, because they didn't say they hadn't read the policies and guidelines. They said they would look at the Teahouse to get a better understanding. There was no contradiction. They demonstrated an understanding of the policies in the areas they'd been making mistakes in, and said they would ask for help in areas they didn't understand yet. But, because that was in the past, let's say you came across the exact same situation today. What would you do?
*:::::::::I'll come back to the Cwooten13 block at a later date, just so we don't start spiraling off out of control. ] (]) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::They said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices"- which would suggest they hadn't yet. ] (]) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::....no? A better understanding != hasn't read something yet. In fact, the use of the comparative adjective "better" implies that they did read it, and they did understand it. Maybe not completely, but very few people understand our policies and guidelines completely, and especially not when they are a bran-new editor.
*:::::::::::And you didn't answer my question. Let's say you see that exact same situation again. What would you do? 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I would unblock them. I think this was just a difference in wording interpretation- which I'm happy to correct when pointed out to me. ] (]) 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::So, an editor is incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry, protests his innocence, and you simply dismiss his protests without any indication why. They then point to their record of good contributions, and you again dismiss this completely and reassert that they were editing maliciously, but you weren't rude? "I didn't have access to all the information." In the first of these two blocks, you did have access to all the information, but still denied the unblock and called it blatant spam. In the second case, you didn't have all the information, but still proceeded to completely reject any possibility that the editor was right and summarily dismissed them. The issue is not "the acceptable level of mistakes" but what you do when those mistakes are pointed out. ] (]) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I can't do anything about mistakes if you don't tell me what they are. I'm always willing to change and adjust. I've never denied this. ] (]) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::??? Seriously? Perhaps reread this whole discussion top to bottom, it lists enough of your mistakes. Or if that's too much to ask, just reread my messages from today. ] (]) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I mean before now. "Hey, 331dot, just a friendly question asking why you did X thing when I noticed Y thing was the case". ] (]) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::So no actual reply to my post then. You claim to be willing to change and adjust, but give no indication that you understand what you did wrong. ] (]) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::"They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment." I did, but unsurprisingly many socks deny being socks. Do I get that wrong sometimes? Yes. ] (]) 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::The editor involved (nor anyone else) had any indication that you took their unblock request and explanation in any way serious, you gave no explanation at all, leaving the editor rather desperate: "Please, could you explain to me how this conclusion has been reached?", no answer. ] (]) 12:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I have other things to do, and by the time I noticed that, someone else(a checkuser) had already engaged with them. I didn't want to pile on especially whem someone with more information was interacting with them. ] (]) 12:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::But it should never have come to that in the first place, if you had at the very least explained your reasons for not believing them at all in either your unblock decline or in your follow-up at the latest. ] (]) 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. ] (]) 12:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::This is actually quite illustrative. We have a situation where several people are telling you that you made mistakes and they're discussing what should be done. This seems to have come almost out of nowhere and you wish you had been given a heads up before it came to this. You're not sure exactly why it is that they're approaching things this way, and even though you're expressing that you're acting in good faith, it feels like there's nothing you can say that would satisfy them. If you're getting frustrated, that's an entirely understandable response and I don't blame you. Imagine the frustration when you're told that {{tq|I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you.}} doesn't cut it and your appeal is denied. ] (]) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::I see what you're trying to do here. I get it. You say it "doesn't cut it" but don't tell me why. I do tell people why or at least attempt to. We all see things differently and have different perspectives, so maybe I don't always succeed. But I try. I'm not the perfect admin certain people seem to want me to be. But turn it around and try to see what I'm saying. I'm not acting nefariously, I'm not a terrible person. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::I don't believe you intend to cause harm. I've never done unblocking (obviously), and I imagine it's one of the more difficult admin tasks. My point is that there are parallels in terms of asking for assumptions of good faith, only that the newer editors don't always know how to express that. My suggestion, acknowledging again I've only been involved as an observer? Once a blocked editor tries to express good faith, the community as a whole should be more willing to help them express that. This is a ultimately a systematic problem. ] (]) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::I agree with that, but that means ''more'' discussion, not less, and this thread was created because of a perception that "several admins" were "just standing by interrogating a user". It's my personal opinion, from handling and watching these over the past couple months, that repeated, snap declines are much more harmful than these longer conversations. -- ] (]) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::I'll be blunt. I'm reading this and I fail to see why PaulSem was blocked in the first place. Even if he works for the site he linked (or a competitor), the reference is at least arguably useful. I'm not seeing "spam". {{ping|331dot}} would you be so kind as to explain why this user was indef blocked/declined? What about his actions were "spam"? I hold no malice toward you and I don't think we've interacted prior. ] (]) 23:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::::{{u|Buffs}} They linked to a site that sells products; seemed like they were trying to drive traffic. ] (]) 23:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::::OK.
*:::::::::::::::::::::Here are his last 5 edits to non-user pages:
*:::::::::::::::::::::*
*:::::::::::::::::::::*
*:::::::::::::::::::::*
*:::::::::::::::::::::*
*:::::::::::::::::::::*
*:::::::::::::::::::::#What is the policy that bans links to sites that sell products? Last I heard we do that all the time, within reason. I'm unaware of a ban.
*:::::::::::::::::::::#How does linking to at least 6 different sites (all commercially independent) in the aforementioned edits "drive traffic"?
*:::::::::::::::::::::#Which one of these references violated the policy that you mentioned above and how does it possibly "drive traffic" When such inputs are to multiple sites? Sectionhiker.com appears to be an opinion page, but has useful information. While it's about commercial products it isn't pushing any of them in particular. REI is indeed a retailer, but they also publish articles about available products (sometimes even those that they don't have). Sciencedirect.com is a scientific article reference site. ukclimbing.com seems to be a site regarding climbing and its associated gear. Lastly the CDN link is a link to the actual international standards...literally the title of the article. Why WOULDN'T you want that link?
*:::::::::::::::::::::#How do links like this harm the encyclopedia? Even if they aren't the best possible links, they are MASSIVELY better than {{cn}} right?
*:::::::::::::::::::::I'm completely confused as to the rationale you provided and how it applies here. ] (]) 00:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::::::Please review the user's talk page. The initial notice said " The blog of a sales website like rei.com is not an appropriate source for Misplaced Pages". If that's not the case, well, okay. ] (]) 00:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::::::I'll give you that it's not the ideal reliable source, but it's also 100% correct. It isn't an uncurated blog. It's an official publication of a company that gives advice from professionals on how to enjoy the outdoor experience more. While we can find better sources, it's infinitely better than {{cn}}, wouldn't you agree?
*:::::::::::::::::::::::However, let's assume it isn't a viable source. Wouldn't it be easier to simply delete the link? I see no reasonable rationale for a indef block within 3 hours and with no further discussion? The only actions thereafter were to replace such sources. ''NONE'' of these were spam sites. In short, the rationale was inappropriate.
*:::::::::::::::::::::::Instead of correcting HJ as you should have, you ''agreed'' with him and upheld it. I don't really understand your rationale. Both your logic and HJ's do not appear to line up with the facts. Accordingly, you both share blame in this egregious miscarriage of your duties as admins.
*:::::::::::::::::::::::The fact that you agreed with this and seem to be doubling down on it is beyond perplexing. If you'd said "Ah, I see your point there. Yeah, I made a mistake. That was a step too far". Instead, you seem to be saying, "No, it was the correct thing to do. But if you guys think it was wrong, feel free to undo it." Correct me if I'm wrong here. ] (]) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* Since this has devolved into focusing on single administrator's actions, I will ask that you either split this into a new discussion, move this to that admin's talk page, or collapse it as not to distract from what was supposed to be a broader discussion. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I've turned it into subsections ] (]) 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: should probably be moved into relevant subsection. ] (]) 12:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*This makes me curious, probably a good fit for the idea lab for further workshopping, but would it be an interesting idea to have a board specifically for ] questions? From what I've seen, asking on the talk page of the editor or the admin themselves gives pretty low visibility to the question and often isn't conducive to further discussion, or sometimes to getting a clear answer at all, while something like AN or ANI might be too direct or accusatory for a simple question. ] (] · ]) 12:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Perhaps the scope of ] could be expanded to include such questions? ] (]) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It could be, although AARV carries the presumption that the action was incorrect and should be up to debate to endorse/overturn, rather than a centralized place to simply ask ] questions with more transparency than the admin's talk page (where things like ] apply). ] (] · ]) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


It's difficult to see how other admins deal with unblock requests, as only open requests are easily findable. Looking at the open requests, I see
:00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC) An Anonymous reader
], which seems from what I can see onwiki a very weird block, but as it is based on an UTRS ticket I can't judge it completely. Still, if it was paid editing the block seems to have come 6 months after the fact, not at a time the paid editing was happening (if it ever happened), so why a block and not a warning/discussion? ] (]) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Because it was a Terms of Use violation involving UPE. I cannot say any more without violating policy and documents that I have signed. ] (]) 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Were there other edits besides what is visible + the one deleted article? ] (]) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't believe I can answer your question without violating policy. ] (]) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, I don't really understand under what circumstances that could be true, but I guess I have to accept it. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::] (and others), it is not a UTRS ticket, it is a ] ticket (presumably a ] ticket). People who are given access to the queue sign the ] (which is the same NDA signed by editors with CUOS). Best, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:@] I'm genuinely curious. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the ticket showed definitive evidence of UPE (because in my estimation as someone who can see the ticket, it did), do you think this is still a bad block in the way you have concerns about other spam blocks where the editor has stopped editing? I didn't become an admin to block people (I am a bit abashed I'm up to 175 blocks in my ~5 years as an admin) but I am closely following this discussion to get my own sense of community consensus about these matters. Best, ] (]) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::If the UPE is about the deleted article, then yes, I consider it a bad block. If there is more to it, which doesn't show up in the edits, log, and filter log, then it may of course be a perfectly acceptable block. But there is, as far as I know, no reason to automatically give an indef block for UPE instead of warning editors, certainly when like here they have made many other edits which seem uncontroversial, and when the paid editing is months in the past and not repeated after the article was deleted. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I looked at the ticket out of curiosity, and based on the evidence I would say that not only is it clearly UPE, it is clearly UPE from someone who knew it was not permitted and chose to engage in it (and later, pretend they hadn't). I think an indefinite block is entirely justified under the circumstances. ] (]) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Vanamonde93|Fram}} Is there some precedent that disclosure for paid editing is no longer required when the paid edits are deleted not by the paid editors request? If there isn't it seems to be an indefinite blocked is perfectly justified, noting that indefinite does not mean infinite. UPE is a ToU violation and so needs to be corrected before the editor contributes to building Misplaced Pages again. It doesn't matter if the editor was simply unaware of the ToU, until and unless they fix their ToU violation they're not welcome to edit here. They've been made aware of it now, and since they made paid edits, they need to disclose who paid them etc. Simply refraining from or even agreeing not to make any more undisclosed paid edits is not sufficient, although in any case a clear agreement should come before they're allowed back to editing. This does leave the open question of how we handle cases where paid editing is suspected but not considered conclusive. (P.S. I'm not convinced deletion at the editor's request is enough to correct UPE violations either. IMO the only remedy for UPE is indeed disclosure. Still it seems more complicated if an editor makes UPE, realises oh crap I should never have done that and asks for deletion of their paid edits so I won't debate that part.) ] (]) 13:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm unaware of such precedent, but also everyone appears to be in agreement that this block was appropriate: we should move on. ] (]) 16:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


{{ping|331dot}} it turns out you were perfectly correct with this block, and at the same time not allowed by policy to convincingly explain it, which must be frustrating. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to the others who took a look at this one. I'll not bother you about similar ticket-based blocks in the future, as it is clear that I can't independently assess them, the one example I used was a perfect block, and you may not explain it in any detail anyway. ] (]) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
It may not be anything, but then again, it may be something. -]<sup>(])</sup> 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:Thank you for this, I agree that the imperfect information landscape must have been frustrating all around and I applaud the good faith, patience, and understanding that the community has demonstrated on this issue. ] (]) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm adding the page to my watchlist. The somewhat... erm... intellectually challenged person who made that suggestion apparently never bothered to consider that a) what he writes is visible to ''everyone'' and b) administrators' actions ''can'' be reversed, very quickly, and often are. Truly one of the lamer "OMG LET'S VANDALIZE T3H W1K1P3D14!!!11!!!oneoneone" suggestions. ] * ] 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, I wouldn't exactly say they've set up us the bomb. Still, it'll be good for a few of us to be watching the pages in question. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


This was closed with the comment "Withdrawn by OP as explanation was deemed suitable. If anyone wants to harangue the multitudes, you may revert my close. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)" but this is incorrect. While the second case was convincingly explained, the ] case was not withdrawn and was a bad block and bad declined unblocked. ] (]) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Defective by Design has now taken down the page that that links to. I wonder if their admins decided it was inappropriate, or if they're trying to hide something? ]|] 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
::I'm pretty sure it's because I sent them a message pointing out how much it discredited their project and how futile an exercise it would be, especially since their suggestion that any DfD members with admin rights protect the page after vandalizing it would lead only to an immediate revert of the protection and an emergency desysopping with a speed not seen since the Everyking scandal. Aside from a few odd DfD members who saw the notice, I don't think we'll see anything now. ] * ] 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


== Indefinite ban of Karwynn == == "Early" closes at AfD ==


The closing instructions at AfD currently says {{tqq|A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours).}} I have noticed that several discussions each day are being closed early. Most of these are less than 30 minutes early but I have seen up to 2 hours early of their 7 days/168 hours. If articles are being closed as keep, I think that's arguably defensible and relisting early when it's obvious no consensus will be reached definitely makes sense, but I have a harder time with deletions. Truthfully, I don't understand the rush, especially as most (if not all - I've only spot checked this) are being done with XfDCloser which warns you if you're going early - that is these admins are making a conscious to close early. Since we're talking a handful minutes it likely doesn't make a difference in the outcome. But for me the instructions imply closing before 168 hours should be more a IAR situation rather than several discussions each day and multiple admins doing it. I thought I would bring it here for discussion to see if it's just me or if it bothers anyone else. And if it is just me maybe we adjust the instruction (or maybe I'm just making normally out to be a stronger prohibition than it's meant to be). I'm specifically not naming any of the admins or linking to any early closes as I'm not looking to get anyone "in trouble", just trying to see where the community stands, but obviously all of this can be observed by anyone else who wants to go through the day's closes at AfD. Thanks and best, ] (]) 04:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I have indefinitely banned Karwynn following recent CheckUser revelations that he was using a slew of sockpuppet accounts for some rather malicious vandalism. The sockpuppet accounts blocked include {{userlinks|ShintoSabe}}, {{userlinks|Rostafar}}, {{userlinks|Mai Ling}}, {{userlinks|GomeonaFinnigan}}, and {{userlinks|Juan Gonzales}}. It has become rather obvious that Karwynn is nothing but an ED troll trying to raise a ruckus on Misplaced Pages, and his long good-bye statement from last week where he gave us all the finger and told us to "sit and spin, bitches" is going to be his ''last'' statement. --] 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:Are there controversial closes being made like this, or 'straight up' all-keeps or all-deletes being closed a few hours early? If it's the latter, then I'd say it's no big. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'd agree with Bushranger here that if they're 'straight up' it probably doesn't ''overly'' matter. XfDCloser does warn for early closures but if they've been relisted once that behaviour does appear to break based on recent personal experience, as I realized last night and self-reverted an MfD close (as redirect) when I realized it was way too early following a relist to take action; got my dates mixed up in that instance and it was in the "old" section. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I advise against closing even marginally early for a couple of reasons. From the perspective of establishing a robust consensus, I know that several regular participants begin with the oldest open discussions (I did this, when I was a frequent participant), and so closing early can sometimes prevent scrutiny that a nomination can usefully receive. From the perspective of making best use of the community's time, I would avoid making an early closure an additional reason to go to DRV. Even the most well-reasoned closures have a chance of ending up there, but ending an AfD a few minutes early offers no tangible benefit to compare with the tangible cost of a DRV (this is somewhat akin to why I discourage even experienced editors from making contentious NACs). ] (]) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|TheSandDoctor}} I don't personally consider a closure "early" if it has already been relisted at least once. I would define early as "open less than 168 hours", not "open less than 168 hours ''since last relist''. If the community sees this differently I'm happy to amend my approach. ] (]) 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree with Vanamonde93 regarding relists - from my understanding, these can be closed at any time once consensus becomes apparent, as they will be over the 168-hour threshold (presumably). No need to wait for (168 x 2). Cheers, ] (]) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, {{u|TheSandDoctor}}, there's no requirement to wait another ''week'' following a relist; the whole point of that mechanism is to nurture a consensus so the discussion can be closed. Not kept open. ]'']''] 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Serial Number 54129|Vanamonde93|Daniel}} Thank you all for the insight on this. I've just always operated under the assumption/understanding that relists were for another full 7 day cycle as if the AfD was just (re-)posted. I'll adjust accordingly. Thank you! ] <sup>]</sup> 00:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::To be clear the AfDs I'm discussing have not been relisted; they're being closed before 7 total days. Best, ] (]) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{nacmt}} I was actually thinking of raising different modification: currently ] actually indicates discussions should be closed after they have been moved to ] (which is 168 hours + rollover of UTC day), which definitely does not reflect practice. I would agree that pre-168 hour closure should probably only occur in exceptional circumstances, though I can't say I've really been keeping track of them so I wouldn't know if the current rate is above my expectations. ] (] • ]) 12:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't done formal math but based on having looked at this over 10 days of closes I'm guessing it hovers just under 10%. Best, ] (]) 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I have been doing some afd closes and I have noticed this as well, probably done it a few times myself, when the result seemed unlikely to change. I usually start doing them less than two hours before midnight UTC though, which is three in the afternoon for me. ] ] 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't recall you from the days I've sampled, but art of my thought here is that AfD seems more than adequately staffed at the moment. So what's the rush with any of these? Just let them play out for the full time and any of the many admin who are around can handle it. Best, ] (]) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just popped in there, all but one from today was already closed. I could be imagining this, but it feels like since I started doing AFD closes again last month, the other regulars have started doing them even earlier. It also seems clear that some of them are watching them days ahead of time, while myself I prefer to come in clean and just read the debate, but that's perhaps just a matter of personal taste. I agree there's no real rush, there's plenty of other backlogs that actually need help. ] ] 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, it tends to be only the kinda gross ones that end up on the /Old list. I've set myself a personal policy to not relist anything that hasn't made it to that page, but I'd also be pretty happy if we all agreed to only close AfDs after they ended up there. -- ] (]) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::If the issue is that ] ({{tq|To process an AFD debate listed on a day page containing debates ] to be closed}}) implies something different than the explicit statement in ] ({{tq|A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)}}), then the two should be reconciled in some way.
::I don't think that there is an objectively better answer here, but the current practice appears to be closer to the language in ]. Since, as ] notes, {{tq|technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors}}, I think we may want to consider tentatively revising ] pending future discussion. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Except old enough links to ] and only things older than 168 hours appear on that page. So I'm not sure I agree they need reconciling. Best, ] (]) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*As someone who has closed thousands of AFDs, I'll just say that closure times varies a lot over time (I'm talking years) and with different discussion closers. NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early, sometimes a full day or two early. I assume this is because they think a discussion looks like SNOW and they want to get the practice of closing AFDs. I regularly remind them to wait for 7 days to pass.
:And we have some admins, none of whom are currently closing AFD discussions, who consistently close up to 9 or 10 hours early. In the past, I have often left a user talk page note about these early closures and those notes usually result in changes in their behavior. Then, there is another phenomena at 23:00 UTC, there is often early closures of lingering AFD discussions that are due to end between 23:00-24:00 UTC. In general, I don't get concerned about AFD closures that are within an hour or two of the appropriate closure time but I do post notifications to closers who close AFDs half a day or days early. We have respected admins who are irregular closers who close a discussion as SNOW that doesn't seem like SNOW to me! I'll just say that while this phenomena might be getting attention right now, the situation is much better now that it was months or years ago. I also recommend that any chiding of closers is done as a general and gentle reminder to all admins, not singling out individuals as we always are short of closers and some of our worst early closers simply do not close AFDs any longer. That's my 2 cents as someone who spends a lot of time in this area.
:I'll also say that while I believe in the 7 day rule, we really get little discussion participation after the first two or three days, when discussions are first posted or right after a discussion has been relisted. We see little last minute activity in deletion discussions. That's my observation. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's what I've generally seen as well, although as you know I wasn't regularly doing them for quite a while until recently. I figure when it is the last hour for everything, it's probably ok to close slightly early unless you see a very recent post that makes a new point or points out sources not previously discussed. Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.
::<br>
::For the record I appreciate your pointers to me when I started doing them again. The ] is a real game changer, which is probably why closes are being handled so quickly, but you do kinda need to know what you are doing with it.
::<br>
::For those that may not know, the XFD closer does alert you when you are closing a discussion early and you have to affirm you are doing so deliberately. ] ] 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.}} I have to register strong disagreement with this statement. It's not my experience that most AFDs are closed hours ahead of time. I think that most closers are very respectful of the 7 day guideline and only close discussions early if it is SNOWING until we get to the 23:00 UTC hour. I think some closers, admins and NACs, have a SNOW bar that is too low (like 4 Keeps or 4 Deletes) but that is a subjective judgment on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
: I disagree with the entire tenor of this discussion. An AfD should be closed when the outcome is clear. A ] close is absolutely fine when the snow has fallen. An early close by a few hours is fine when, aside from outliers making weak arguments, there is overwhelming consensus for specific outcome that cannot realistically change in the course of the normal pattern of an AfD. ] ] 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, this seems like a good problem to have.
::Regarding, "{{tq|NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early}}", I've closed discussions as clearly keep on the seventh calendar day, but an hour or more before the clock completely runs out, and don't see an issue with something like ] where there is discussion and only keep !votes. I've also had several times where I read through the discussion, wrote up the rationale, and came back a few minutes before the clock ran out only to find the discussion already closed early by another editor. Closing early (at least for me) is to avoid duplicating and wasting effort.
::A technical solution to make collaboration easier when closing would be appreciated. I have no idea how the XFDcloser gadget works, but I'm imagining some kind of way to flag an AfD discussion not as closed but as "being reviewed" or something like that. ] (]) 02:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], I wasn't talking about all NACs or anyone specifically. I think it's just a tendency among NACs to be enthusiastic about closing or relisting discussions and so they can take action too soon sometimes. But NACs help out a lot and usually make accurate closures. IF I have issues with any editor, I bring it to their User talk page and they are almost always very responsive to criticism which, to me, is an essential trait on this platform. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@], gotcha, and I wasn't taking it in a personal way. I realize it can be hard to tell with just text. ] (]) 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Quibbling about a few hours seems to be clearly against the spirit of ]. If an the admin has time to process a batch of AfDs now but not in a couple of hours, it makes sense to do that rather than letting them sit. For many years ] has also implicitly encouraged this but colouring such discussions yellow instead of red. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The yellow is just for relists, as far as I can tell. An AfD that is about to hit 168 hours is still red. -- ] (]) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Oh! I've always misunderstood that then. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'll be the contrarian I guess. I understand ], but by the same token, if someone is fervently defending a '''keep''' of an article, especially if contentious, giving the full 7 days is not a bureaucratic move, but one of respect. People have taken their own time to create such media (articles, images, etc) and we should be respectful of their time and efforts before removing them, especially if done in good faith. One of the biggest problems we have is getting new people involved. There's no quicker way to get someone out than to delete all their work. All that said, yes, a ] keep = ok to close early. The same would apply for a ] no consensus. Some additional, generic clarifying guidelines for both Admins and users would probably go a long way. ] (]) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:] and ]: . Feel free to revert if you believe it is in error. ] (]) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I completely agree with and endorse this outcome. I would assert that any ] outcome can be closed once the snow has fallen, and that any discussion for which the outcome cannot reasonably be expected to change is in the same situation. If for example, you have a nomination for deletion that starts out with a handful of delete votes, and is followed by a flood of keep votes with well-reasoned bases in policy and evidence, particularly where the article is improved over the course of the discussion with the addition of sources demonstrating notability, then there is no reason to embarrass the subject any further with a deletion template. ] ] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Why should there be a different standard for deletion versus keeping? ] (]) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::A valid question. When you are keeping someone's edits, effectively no action is taken; everything remains as-is. When you are deleting them, you are effectively saying not only should everyone's inputs be deleted, but that you are deleting every record of their efforts and they would have to start over; giving them the full 7 days to attempt to persuade others is a reasonable compromise and reflects courtesy towards their good faith contributions. YMMV. ] (]) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
: I was unfortunately very wrong about this user. Endorse block. ] 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Copying done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:Finally, an end to a monumentally huge waste of time. Thanks, Cyde.--] 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think ] should be preserved at the AfD's talk page, since it includes necessary context for the comment by {{user|Nurg}}. –] (]]) 15:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Endorse, we really shouldn't take sooo long to rid ourselves of patent trolls. As MONGO says, this stuff really does waste the time and patience of good users. --] 09:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:Admins have access to look at the page history if needed; there's no rule we have to preserve any portion of a deleted article for generic public access, including its talk page. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Endorse block. ] ] 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::I've copied over the section in question; I'm not sure how necessary it is either, but it's a good-faith request and I'm happy to oblige. ] (]) 09:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Block endorsed. Glad it was blocked and the sock farm detected. --] 22:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:Wow, interesting how users can show completely different faces depending on what username they're using. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 12:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


== Page's name blacklisted ==
==]==
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from ] and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of ]. Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account.
For the Arbitration Committee. ] 03:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Dear Administrators,
== One to watch ==


I am writing to request the creation of a Misplaced Pages page titled nCircle - it is about BIM software. I see that pages with the term "nCircle" have been restricted due to past issues involving the now-deleted nCircle Entertainment page which is another entity. However, I would like to assure you that this proposed page is entirely unrelated to nCircle Entertainment and is a different subject entirely. ] (]) 12:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
{{user|Chelsea Tory}} is causing a ruckus at {{article|Gregory Lauder-Frost}}. He attributes motives to all editors including ], who is just about the most civil person I've come across on the project. Trolling, tendentious edits, assertions of illegality. If one or two uninvolved admins could keep an eye I'd be grateful. <b>]</b> 10:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:] has been create-protected by the administrator {{u|Toddst1}} since 2009. You should ask them how to proceed on their talk page at ]. They will likely agree to lift the protection, especially if you can show them a draft article, which you can create at ], that demonstrates that the topic is notable enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages (see ]) by citing independent reliable sources that treat the topic in depth. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Is it possible this could be legal-threat-extraordinaire {{userlinks|Sussexman}} again? --]<sup>]</sup> 15:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::{{re|Sandstein}} Todd is no longer an admin.--] (]) 16:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Possibly, but I doubt it. They are undoubtedly connected in some way, though. -- ] 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:::@], thanks for the notice. @], I can create ] through the title blacklist for you. Please ping me as soon as you have drafted the article, as described above, and I'll move it to main space. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@]
::::Hello, thank you for your advice. But unfortunately, I can't create Draft:nCircle either, because this page is also blocked from being created. What should I do in this case? ] (]) 11:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Courtesy ping ], who blacklisted. —] 19:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::@]: Sorry for the trouble, I didn't think that the blacklist would also catch draftspace. Can you try creating the article at ]? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], thanks for your advice. I have created the page ]. What are my next steps? ] (]) 12:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@], the next step would have been for me to move your draft to ], overriding the blacklist. But in this case I decline to do so because I am not convinced that the draft establishes the notability of the topic. The sources cited appear to be of a superficial or promotional nature, leading me to question their reliability and/or independence, especially in view of the issue of ]. You remain free to amend the draft with better sources (see ] for the criteria) and to ask for another review at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], okay, thank you for your advice, I will work on it. Can you tell me when you will remove the block for creating the nCircle Tech page? Because the current block is illogical and concerns a completely different company called Ncircle entertainment, which operates in a different industry. ] (]) 10:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You should discuss this with the admin who blacklisted the page, {{u|Ivanvector}}, on their talk page. There may be reasons to maintain the blacklisting, such as possibly ongoing spam by the other Ncircle. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*I've moved the page to ], overriding the blacklist. I'm not in favour of removing the blacklist entry, but fine with overriding if the draft is approved. I have not reviewed it but I did add the AFC draft banner. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Trouble with User Jim62sch == == Please remove my PCR flag ==
{{atop|1=Flag removed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I haven't used it very much lately, and now have little need for it. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 19:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Done. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 19:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== philip ingram vs. phillip ingram ==
Dear Admins,
{{atop
over the last few days I have run into trouble with ] on the ] article. Our actual disagreement is about whether to include certain comments or not: ]. I opposed this as I think the comments uninformative and bloating the section, while he readded them time and again. But the real problem with him is that he does not ] when I state my reasons for removing them, instead accuses me of trying to "censor" or "whitewash", and is extremely ] in trying to use my religious persuasion, which I did indicate on my user page to ban me from editing in this issue. He has made similar remarks towards ], when she commented on the issue. Now, I want to be clear that I am not aiming at Jim being blocked or anything like this. I am sure he is a valuable contributor. However, could some admin please admonish him to desist from his uncivil and unwikipedian behaviour. Cheers, ] ] 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
| result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 00:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:This is a content dispute. Please take it to ]. Jim is acting in his capacity as editor, not admin here. Please note that revert-warring is not endorsed as a way of resolving content disputes. While the relevance of individual criticisms may be debatable, there is no doubt that at this moment the controversy in question is headline news around the world and we need to give a flavour of that. The content in question is cited and stated accurately, so it's a judgment call, and that is not something we can fix by admin intervention, I'm afraid. <b>]</b> 14:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
}}
::My query is not about a content dispute, but about Jim's behaviour of trying to exclude editors from certain topics based on their respective religions, and of constant insulting and bad faith comments. I have not asked you for your opinion in the content dispute, as you have voiced that on that talk page. ] ] 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Still a content dispute. I know Jim, he is a fair-minded guy. Have you tried talking nicely ot him? I often find that works a treat. <b>]</b> 17:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::::It is NOT a content dispute. If you don't want to help, then don't. Jim might otherwise be a nice guy, but he has attacked and assumed bad faith at me since our first disagreement on this issue. ] ] 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::How silly of me to suggest that a dispute over the inclusion of content is a content dispute. I'll know better next time, I guess. <b>]</b> 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Content dispute. This isn't the place for it. Work it out on the talk. ] 00:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I will stop this here, since apperently no one here cares about AGF and civility any more. How silly of me to think problematic behaviour is a behaviour problem. (And to repeat it one more time: I did not come here to get the content dispute solved, so please don't comment on it.) ] ] 07:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Don't go overboard, please. It's a content dispute, there is no administrative intervention required. Honestly. There's no need to try and make a Federal case of it. <b>]</b> 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't go overborad. And I am disappointed that no admin wants to tackle it. But most of all, I am astounded how someone can repeatedly declare something a content dispute when it is quite clearly not the content dispute that I have raised here. There was a content dispute, but what I raised here was Jim's behaviour. The way you talk, Guy, everything is a content dispute, as I hardly can think of a conflict not related to content in some way. For me the case is closed, so don't reply here. ] ] 16:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


one, philip born in Tyrone Ireland, phillip born in the US.philip:military specialist; phillip rocker.
==Possible sock?==
But in comments and wiki questions, both are completely mixed up! Why not check up on that, thanks! ] (]) 23:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{{vandal|Tyresias}}
:We don't have an article for ]. If there is content in ] that applies to a different person, just bring it up at ]. ]&nbsp;] 23:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Anyone want to weigh in on whether this user is a sock, and/or if a RFCU is indicated? ]<sup>]</sup> 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:Editing a policy page as your first edit may indicate that you've been banned and are pursuing an agenda, or it may indicate that you've been editing as an anon, have gotten interested in policy articles, want to make a change and have realised, correctly, that you're not likely to be taken seriously editing a cornerstone policy page unless you create an account. If you're willing to name a sockpuppeteer, please go ahead and then we can compare the two accounts' contributions and request a Checkuser if necessary, but I don't see any proof of sockpuppetry based on this account's contributions alone. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::At the risk of sounding curt, I already knew that, as do most readers of this page. My hope was that ''if'' the user is a sock, someone would recognise the pattern and speak up. I have one sneaking suspician but would prefer others take a look and see if they see a similarity with any of the NOR edit warriors. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Never mind - someone else noticed, and he is indeed who I suspected and is now blocked. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:And I agree as well. Seems this one is haviong a bit of trouble leaving, despite his repeated assertions to the contrary. <b>]</b> 17:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::Perhaps we can get JA and JG together - the one knows Truth because he wrote the book (novel) on it, and the other knows Truth because he got it directly from God - and they're both banned sockpuppeting trolls. They have so much in common! ]<sup>]</sup> 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


== ISA99 Committee ==
==Vandalism in article: Lebanon==
{{atop
The entire contents of the article Lebanon have been deleted and replaced with the content of the article Canada. The IP address responsible is 139.142.154.129. Please revert the page move/deletion and block vandal. ] 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
| result = Soft-blocked for username violation and encouraged to edit using COI edit requests. ] (]/]) 17:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


An ] claiming to be the chairs of the has made some edits recently. I have seen matters of professionals editing on Misplaced Pages handled very intentionally before, so I thought I would ask whether the team is in contact with Misplaced Pages admin, or if a qualified user could ensure their work has met Misplaced Pages's guidelines. ] (]) 17:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== Requests for mediation has ground to a halt ==
{{abot}}


== User BubbleBabis ==
] seems to have ground to a halt. There are 30 cases listed pending decisions to accept or reject, about 10 accepted cases that have not been assigned, and no substantive edits to the page in almost 2 months. Essjay, current chair of Medcom, hasn't edited anything in a month. I don't personally have anything pending but I noticed this through comments on Essjay's talk page, which I have watchlisted. Are there some former mediators who can take over temporarily and get things moving along again? It seems like a big part of the dispute resolution process is not functioning at the moment. ] 17:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::I am not part of Medcom, but I've watched how they worked in the past, and I'm kind of wandering aimlessly looking for a Wikipurpose at the moment. If X number of admins are willing to sign off on it, I'd be happy to step in on an interim basis to do the clerical work and try to stir up the active Medcom members to elect someone else. --] 01:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, Medcom is kind of a closed club, with a closed mailing list and special procedures for accepting new members. I'm kind of hoping one of the mediators emeriti listed on the page will jump in as acting chair and get things going. If on the other hand there is no action in a few days and you fell like being bold, the worst thing that can happen is you'll stir someone else to action. ] 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I wonder if I might stir someone else to toss me into arbitration. Heh, could be interesting, couldn't it? I'll watch the page; if nothing at all happens after a few days, I'll come back and seek some sort of semiofficial sanction for my coup attempt. Hopefully they'll take care of it on their own, but it's already been an awfully long time for all those Medcom members to just sit on their hands, waiting for a sign from somewhere else. If nothing else, it's a sign that a couple of new rules should be enacted about the workflow, IMHO. --] 02:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:Is Essjay gone? He has not edited anything in a month.... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
::Essjay has not edited meta since August 7th, I think. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="darkyellow">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> <font color="oceanblue">]</font><font color="aqua">]</font> 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:::He mentioned some real life issues, including the start of the school year and having more responsibilities. My gut tells me its more than that, though. ] 04:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
::::According to ], he's currently overseeing the Board election. ] 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
*I've pointed a few current mediators here to see the discussion. ] <small>]</small> 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


I have noted my issues with the edits of a particular user by the name of ] many times. This editor is a ], a plagiarizer, and has trouble making ] contributions to articles. They have frequently displayed their inability to provide real citations, added copyrighted content to articles, and do not attribute text they steal from other articles. I have noted a few of the many hoaxes they have added at ] and ]. They are often unable to edit in a ] and overall their work is detrimental to this wonderful website, its editors who always have to clean up after their work, and its readers.
: Hi. First of all, I'd like to thank you for covering for ] in the ]. I know its technically against procedure for someone who is neither a member nor a nominee of the MedCom to take MedCom cases, but considering the circumstances, I'm glad you did.
*Contains sentences stolen from ] and not attributed {{diff2|1265507494}}
: As for who should accept/reject cases, it was my understanding that MedCom came to some sort of consensus (presumably by mailing list), and some member of the committee (which for some reason always happens to be Essjay) accepted/rejected the case on behalf of the committee as a whole. But, not having been on the committee for very long, I've never actually been part of this process, so maybe I have it all wrong.
*Adding off-topic information about Al Qaeda to other articles not concerning it {{diff2|1264089855}} {{diff2|1241749411}}
: There are six cases listed as "unassigned" on the ], and of those, three have received offers from a mediator (two from ], one from me), but are still pending agreement of the parties to that mediator. If there are accepted cases missing from that list, maybe you could add them? Or I could try looking around.
*Adding other off-topic information {{diff2|1244473348}} {{diff2|1220839273}}
: — ] (]|]|]) 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
*Adding clearly ] sources (spongobongo, pdfcoffee, dokumen.pub, etc.) {{diff2|1222489492}} {{diff2|1220166198}} {{diff2|1265507494}} {{diff2|1219639301}} {{diff2|1219133411}}
*Misrepresentation of sources {{diff2|1220275409}} {{diff2|1217414976}} {{diff2|1193127595}}
*Original research {{diff2|1219638095}} {{diff2|1216779114}} {{diff2|1188045737}}


It is my hope for this not to continue. ] (]) 21:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hello as well. To start, I do apologize for the current backlog in mediation cases. As mentioned above, Essjay, who is our chair and does invaluable work, has currently been busy and inactive for a while now; I, too, have also been too busy to do much until recently. This has led to a large number of cases piled up - we've been postponing the (now) inevitable task of finding someone in the committee to temporarily do his duties. I will personally address these issues on our mailing list &mdash; it is our goal to serve the community, and we need to get the ball rolling again. Again, apologies for our lack of activity. In addition, I encourage any trusted users who wish to help to ]: we always are looking for new mediators to help us! Finally, a word of great thanks to the ] and other groups for doing their best in helping resolve disputes. Thanks again! ] <small>(])</small> 23:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:I've noticed this in ] as well. we started talking about the issues on ] after some further edits today. Looks like like to me some blantant NOR/BLP/synth problems, as well as using unreliable sources. ] (]) 22:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Pizermmmmmmm76486 and USERNOCAT ==
== IP request ==
{{atop
| result = Indefinitely blocked from userspace until they discuss the issue. ] (]/]) 23:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


Can an administrator take a look at {{u|Pizermmmmmmm76486}} and their continued use of article categories in their username space on pages like ]? For some reason, they keep re-enabling these categories with edits such as ] even though it been pointed out ] and ] on their user talk page that this isn't really good practice per ]. Similar enabling of categories has also been taking place at ] and ], though these have not been re-enabled as of yet. Pizermmmmmmm76486 just blanks their user talk page without responding to comments posted there, which is fine per ], but makes it hard to figure out if there's something about USERNOCAT that they don't understand or don't agree with. A message posted ] on their user talk about copy-pasting entire articles onto their user page was also blanked without response. It also might be a good idea to take a look at ] per ]. I totally get ] and that this is a userspace draft, but it's hard to see how the "title" of the draft is related to the content of the draft; it also seems like it could possibly be mistaken to mean "]" or "]". Pizermmmmmmm76486 has many userspace drafts they're currently working on, most without their categories enabled and most without more suitable titles; so, it seems they're familiar enough with relevant policies and guidelines to know what they are and how to work in accordance with them. FWIW, I asked an administrator named {{u|Bearcat}} to take a look at this ], but it's the end of the year and people get busy with other things. Since this isn't really urgent, I'm posting about it here instead of ANI. If, however, it's better off at ANI, please advise and I can move the discussion there. -- ] (]) 23:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
First, sorry if this is in the wrong place. I really can't figure out where it should go.
{{abot}}


== User:Redrose64 conduct at VPT ==
I was wondering if I could request the user IP 150.101.113.199 be unblocked for people who sign in.
{{atop|1=Let's just say there is zero point to this. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I want to file a report on {{user|Redrose64}} for their conduct at ]. Simply put: has this administrator acted improperly in their discussions with {{user|DuncanHill}}? --] &#x1F98C; (]) 00:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd really rather not have anything to do with this editor or this thread. I have asked him to stop trying to help me. I regard this report as harassment. ] (]) 00:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not every warning or comment that an admin makes is made with their admin hat on. This post is not harassment, but it was an unnecessary escalation in my view. Both of you should just walk away from each other. ] (]/]) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't understand why an editor/admin is filing a report on AN about themselves. It seems pointy to me especially when the other editor refuses to have anything to do with this complaint. I recommend this just be closed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Reporting oneself & then notifying oneself of that self-report on one's own talkpage? What??? ] (]) 03:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
This is a school computer, so I can't really control what people use it to edit (especially since it's a k to 12 school), but it's dissapointing that I can't edit some articles.


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
Anyway, that's all. Thank you.
: Reblocked 1 month with anonymous only and account creation enabled. ] 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
: We should probably block account creation from this address as well, but allow pre-registered accounts, otherwise there isn't much point in blocking the IP; it just makes our job more difficult to track abuse. In my opinion, the system administator should be contacted before blocks are released on educational networks which are proven as constant sources of vandlaism. ] 10:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
==]==
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at ]. For the Arbitration Committee. ] 02:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
== Anyone watching WP:PAIN tonight? ==


Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
There is a clear npa violation, with requisite diffs, warnings, etc. at ] right now (Éponyme) that has been open for nearly four hours now without any administrator attention thus far. Anyone want to take a look at it? &middot; <font color="#013220">]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' &middot; 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
:Oh yeah--totally one-sided. Make them choose sides, especially the easiest side being that which has many numbers of apathetic lynchmobbers. Nobody has empathic Devil's Advocacy! ] 03:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::It was taken care of. Thanks. &middot; <font color="#013220">]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' &middot; 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
== User:John Spikowski ==
:The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Myself a other editors of the ], ], and ] articles are having quite a bit of trouble with user ]. If you go through the history of those pages, the user pages, the user talk pages, and other related pages, you will find repetitive acts of vandalism in the form of spam, attention-seeking, user-page vandalism, talk-page vandalism, changing people's comments, and the list just goes on and on. It's not hard to spot once you check out some of the pages. This user has also made personal attacks to ]. It's pretty out of control and I ask the admins for advice on the subject. Never asked for anyone to be blocked before, but I think this case is extreme enough to ask for this request. We could really use some help right now. Thoughts? ] 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request for assistance with semi-protected page edit ==
Quick note. I feel like myself and other contributing editors have made an effort in trying to understand the reasons for ] editing and have attempted to communicate intention rationally. The user simply resorts to defamation of others are removing comments all together. Please advise. ] 06:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I’d like to suggest an update to the page ] to include more accurate or additional information. Since the page is semi-protected, I’m unable to edit it myself. Could someone assist me with making the changes? What would be the next step? Thanks. ] (]) 09:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== WP:PAIN ==
:Please use the ] to create an edit request, which will then be placed on the article talk page. ] (]) 09:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Anyone for the idea that it should be redirected here? I seem to be one of just a couple of admins that even look at it. I removed alerts tonight that hadn't been acted on in over a *week*. What's the point? --]<sup>]</sup> 09:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:I worked their a bit, but the request are often not well formatted and require heavy research and context, so I tend to think "meh...let someone else do it".''']''' 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
::I confess I also rarely visit that page. I have it it watchlisted, but many of the complaints are not only badly formatted, they are... well, not actually personal attacks being listed. Others are one foul-mouthed troll posting an alert about another foul mouthed troll, and frankly, I get enough trolling and accusations of heavy-handedness already. *sigh* I'll try to help out there more. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:: In the same category as KC. ] 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::So I think we should redirect it here. More admins can see the requests that way. Separate page for it is a great idea but I just don't think it's worked out well. Just not enough people working on it. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Here, or AN/I since most of the things reported are incidents, aren't they? Support the notion that if it is thinly covered, better to point to the less specific place that does have coverage. ++]: ]/] 12:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


== New idea == == Jaspreetsingh6 unban request ==
{{archive top|Clear consensus to unban with a one-account restriction. Welcome back. ] ] 19:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Jaspreetsingh6}}:
{{tqb|I am requesting to be unbanned. I was banned for repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages's guidelines even after receiving warnings from admins, and I will not make any excuses for that because it's entirely my fault. I shouldn't have violated ] and should not have created new accounts again and again to evade blocks, misleads other editors, avoid sanctions, etc. If I get unblocked, I promise you I won't create new accounts and will only use this one}}
] (]) 22:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unban'''. The difference between being 16 and 18 is huge. Jaspreetsingh6 said on their talk page {{tq|when I look back at my past behavior, I feel very embarrassed}}. I think it's worth giving them a shot at proving that they've changed. Jaspreetsingh6 also seems to have improved their English. ]&nbsp;] 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' per ] and @]. ] (]/]) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' after reading their talk page and seeing the evolution in language and maturity. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 00:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' per above. Seems like a reasonable request <!--yes I'm a bit biased in this field, but so be it-->. ''']]''' 01:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Unblock request is refreshingly honest and to-the-point. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 01:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' This sort of situation is what the standard offer was created for, thanks for bringing it here. ] ] 02:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', including the self-proposed one account restriction ({{tq| I promise you I won't create new accounts and <u>will only use this one</u>}}). Two years seems like a reasonable amount of time for someone to mature. Should we encounter socking issues going forward, we can deal with it then, but let's give this editor another shot. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 05:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ]. Here's a little bit of rope...be careful... ] (]) 23:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for successfully meeting ] and agreeing to 1 account use. Nothing more is needed here. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per standard offer. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️<sup>(] ● ] ● ])</sup> 05:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ] - This user appears to be reformed, which is the whole point of WP:SO. - ] ] 12:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' While I am not sure about their editing capabilities, the block only concerned abuse of multiple accounts and that has been addressed. ] (]) 15:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== ] ==
I've written up an idea that's been floating around in my head for a few days and finally gelled this morning: ]. Comments and flames welcomed. Best, ] ] 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
{{discussion top}}
: Me likes. -- <small> ]</small> 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
{{NOTHERE|This is not an issue of general interest to administrators. Maybe try the ] ] ] 02:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:''For a length of time to be determined, an administrator will be asked to stop using the tools.'' Who will be doing the asking? Unless the admin in question has done something particularly egregious, which should go through the arbcom anyway, I can see having contentious arguments between groups of admins and users as to whether or not what was done even warrants nullification (for example, policy wonks vs IAR wonks). Overall, though, I think it's a good idea. --] 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What article would the term "]" fall into? Because in my opinion it could be classified as disruptive editing, but also the same spot as the term "]". ] (]) 02:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:You might want to read through ], which has some similar ideas. <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 16:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:What does this have to do with this noticeboard?--] (]) 02:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, if we're making proposals, I have had one, too. I'm not sure that it's a thing for the general site to argue over as much as it is a proposal for a reconsideration of how ArbCom thinks about what it does. It's here for those who care. ] 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}
:The general idea of "easy way for desysopping (voluntarily or otherwise) for some time" seems to be common to these proposals. I think it's a good idea, as any proposal to desysop indefinitely is likely to fail. (], ]). 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:My own goal is to have an ''expiring demotion,'' as Guy put it. When people demoted have to go through an RFA again, it beomes a truly onerous process. That's why I'm suggesting that, as we have blocks that go 24 hr, 48 hr, etc., we have demotions that time out, though not for such brief periods. What I'm really advocating is a change of ''mindset'' from ArbCom. It would demystify ArbCom a bit and make the stick held over administrators potentially shorter (and therefore easier to swing), but it's all possible already. ] 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
::I wouldn't be opposed to the idea. The more power that devolves from the center, the better. ] ] 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Well then, let's just eliminate admins altogether. With all due respect, I just see so many pitfalls, as Doc says. We can't agree on how admins should be desysopped or when they should be...so let's open up another discussion on how to temporarily desysop them so we can all disagree on that. It's pointless. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


== Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article ==
These ideas all have the same fatal flaw. You will not get any consensus to desysop an admin (temporary or otherwise) unless the case is so clearcut that arbcom would deal with it anyway. Take, for insstance, Tony_Sidaway who has obviously annoyed a lot of people right now, but I still think you'd get no consensus to take any specific action. I, for one, would oppose it. In short any of these systems will generate a lot of heated debate, but they'll never ''do'' anything that AC wouldn't have done anyway. --] 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
| status = Venue corrected


| result = Now at ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:Exactly. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
}}
], I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - ] (]) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:You should report this at ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Gave the purported director a COI welcome template. ] (]) 08:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Request for Deletion of My User and Talk Pages Due to Personal Attacks and Mismanagement ==
:''(edit conflict)'' The two proposals seem similar in general theory - Mackensen's suggests a voluntary break from admin tasks while Geogre's has it enforced by temporary removal of powers. I'd suggest leaving the details (such as duration of 'hiatus') to the ArbCom to determine on a case by case basis, but otherwise see no problem with either... or both. ArbCom currently tells users 'stay away from articles on this subject' and then only blocks if the user does not... they could similarly tell an admin 'stay away from deletions of this type' or 'check with other admins before doing anything that is foreseeably likely to be very controversial' (applying Mackensen's concept to only a particular type of admin activity) and only enacting Geogre's 'enforced vacation' if they violated the injunction. Heck, I'd like to see this concept applied as general practice without any sort of punitive element to it. We all have our particular areas that we feel strongly about and valid reasons to be involved in, but when things get heated walking far enough away to get fresh perspective is a good thing. More... 'go do something else while tempers cool' than 'you are wrong and we are gonna block you'. 'Andy Mabbet, stop working on Birmingham articles for now', 'SPUI, go work on something other than roads for a while', 'Cyde, you need to walk away from userboxes for now', 'CBD, you should leave off defending blocked users for a while', et cetera. I'd much rather see, 'ok you ''all'' stay away from this subject for a week', as a standard response to edit wars and incivility than warnings or blocks. ''(after conflict)'' I wonder if this latter would address Doc's concern - would people really object if it were a way of saying 'there is a problem on this issue and everyone involved needs to walk away from it for a while' rather than parcelling out 'blame' and 'punishment'. --] 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Atop|Bye.--] (]) 14:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}}


] (]) 09:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'll echo Doc's concerns, and explain. I don't think this will work precisely because in the kinds of situations like this, sides are drawn. And sides think they're right, and cannot fathom why no one else can see it. Those with the Admin bit, ''using'' the admin bit feel they're protecting the project in these situations and telling someone like that to back off rarely works. I doubt you'd get two sides to agree at once, and I doubt you'd get anyone to be recognized as a mediating influence (i.e., completly non-partisan) outside of ArbCom. And sadly, the current kerfluffle above around Tony seems to have drug the ArbCom into it, so I'm not sure ''how'' that one will shake out. I'm sorry, this looks to me like a bit of instruction creep which isn't likely to really solve any problems, even though it's very well intentioned. --] 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:@] They have no contents, thus your request needs clarification. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Aliazizov}} Administrators here have zero authority on az.wp; you need to make the request at az.wp's equivalent of this page. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 09:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Request for Complete Deletion of My User and Talk Pages ==
Conrad has the thread of what I'm getting at here. Administrators need to take breaks from administrating now and then. If anyone's looked at my contributions, they'll note that my first reaction after my...unpleasantness...on the noticeboard a few days back was to go and start a new article (still a stub, but I'm going to take some pictures this week). Re InkSplotch, I want to avoid instruction creep as much as possible. Formal processes, enshrined policies, page listings...let's avoid all that. What we need is a way to tell an administrator that he or she needs to go something else, and for that administrator to listen. ] ] 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Question addressed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Dear Administrators,


I am writing to formally request the complete deletion of my user and talk pages on Misplaced Pages. This request is based on recent personal attacks and accusations directed at me, which have created a hostile environment and made it impossible for me to continue contributing to this platform.
:Great, but we should not *force* breaks. As I said before, so many negative assumptions. It's a "one size fits all" type of idea. And what happens if vandals or other people who don't assume good faith try to get someone desysopped? As doc says, who decides that the desysopping be done? If it's other admins, then it's basically the arbcom. I just don't see the point of forcing it. It's very very unwiki. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Given the circumstances, I no longer wish to remain active on Misplaced Pages and would appreciate it if my user and talk pages are deleted entirely to prevent further misuse or misinterpretation.
:I'd certainly agree that a "way to tell an administrator to go something else" is a fine thing, but how do you make them listen without resorting to the use of admin tools? Or, rather, how do you make them listen without resorting to admin tools and without inflaming the situation? It's a tactical challenge beyond me, but if you succeed, I'll be fully behind you. Can I ask, is this in direct response to the Tony/Giano situation above, or just sort of tangential? --] 20:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your understanding and support. Please let me know if further clarification is needed.
::I'd been thinking about a workable desysoping idea (if only temporary) for a while. It's not a direct response, but it certainly influenced my thoughts. ] ] 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Best regards,Cavidnuri44 ] (]) 09:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with the importance of taking breaks. One good way of taking a break from the Misplaced Pages admin grind, and other users that you might be in conflict with is poking around some of the other projects. Perhaps we could encourage people to do that (not "get the hell off en wp" but "hey, have you seen this Wikibook on <<insert user's favourite topic>>") ] ] 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:Based on your signature, you don't have anything on your user or user talk pages.
:What you are asking for is a vanishing, see ]. ] (]) 09:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:You don't have any edits other than this one- did you create this account for the purpose of making this request? ] (]) 09:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I created this account solely to request the complete deletion of my user account and talk pages from the platform ] (]) 09:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You'll need to tell us what your original account is in order for us to do that- you can do that as ] describes.
:::We can address personal attacks against you if you identify your account. We want everyone to feel safe and comfortable here. ] (]) 10:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I will say user talk pages are not normally deleted. ] (]) 10:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Given Cavidnuri44 ''also'' has edits primarily on az.wp just like Aliazizov above, I'm going to assume this is the same person as them, and give them the same advice I have above. {{ping|Cavidnuri44}} Administrators on the English-language Misplaced Pages can't do ''anything'' with regard to the Azeri Misplaced Pages. You need to request this on the Azeri Misplaced Pages's equivalent of this page; requests here on en.wp are a waste of time. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 10:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for clarifying. ] (]) 10:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Noting the user has been ]ed ] (]) 13:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think these requests are a waste of time. Given their frequency, apparently many editors don't understand that Misplaced Pages projects are separate domains. The editor had a question and it was answered, how else would they know? We might get tired of answering questions like this one but we don't have a FAQ for this page and since this noticeboard is intended to be a way to communicate with admins, it seems like it is serving that purpose. Just because the regulars get tired of answering the same questions doesn't mean we can expect new editors here to already know the answers to them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Unclear policy ==
::Can we call it 'going on wiki-walkabout'? :] --] 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Asked and answered. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


If an RfC about ''policy'' -- i.e., things that one is and is not allowed to do -- was closed with no consensus, but the current state of policy is contradictory (as in, existing policies contradict one another, or more specifically policies contradict guidelines), what is the path forward? I would really like there to be a hard ruling one way or the other, because I am receiving feedback that implies that I would be breaking the rules somehow for following policy that exists.
:::I was thinking more like "Wiki-rambling" or some such. Random article patrol is an oddly soothing exercise sometimes. ]. ] ] 03:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


For disclosure this is about ] on reverting vandalism to talk page archives, and ], about the more than 2,200 instances of undetected vandalism that people are telling me I am not allowed to revert, citing a consensus that does not actually exist. I cannot emphasize how ''absolutely wild'' it is that there is controversy over whether one is allowed to revert vandalism and that people are actually angry at me for trying to revert vandalism, ''']''', and I was under the impression that policy trumps guidelines, in general. But here we are.
I've been watching RfA for a long time and here's my observation. Many people do lots of cheap edits and then stop after they "win" RfA in order to turn into political chatterboxes. An important reason for desysoping should be lack of main space edits (other then reversions). Those admins who write no new articles tend to ignore the names of quality editors. They know only those wikipedians with whom they chat for hours on IRC. If they have no recent experience in editing Misplaced Pages, what's the point of their presiding over the project? Misplaced Pages for them is a maiden aunts' tea party. After all, we are here to write an encyclopaedia. All the rest is of secondary importance. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 08:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:But there is still useful work that can be done outside the article space e.g whatever you think about the arbcom and its clerks, they are doing a job that benefits the encyclopedia by resolving disputes. XfD voting and closing has a direct effect, and welcoming newbies is important too. And you want to desysop those who mainly revert vandalism? Well good luck writing new articles whilst trying to keep vandals off all your old ones on your own. The point is, some people (myself included) might not be particularly good at writing new articles - or just don't feel like it. Users should be able to contribute in areas where they feel able to, if it benefits the encyclopedia. On the other hand I think there should probably be more recognition for "quality editors" - I have to admit I had barely heard of Giano before all this, which seems a real shame. ] ] 09:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::Yep. Again. Just too many negative assumptions by those who want this. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*So, because the admins will disagree, there is no point in trying? Sheesh. My point, if any of those objecting actually read it, is that we use blocks freely and demotion almost never. This is the opposite of what it should be. If I lose the buttons, I can still edit. If I lose the ability to edit, I can't use the buttons. ArbCom's informal ''practice'' is to reserve demotion for something horrible. That's a ridiculous situation, but it's understandable given the horrors of RFA. That's why I suggest either that ArbCom start issuing temporary demotions freely (and therefore Tony, for example, would have been popped about 8 times this year by now) with no "shame on you! you shall never be a trusted user again" involved or, if ArbCom cannot face this, a collective remedy through administrator review. ''Any'' misuse of the buttons should mean a loss of those buttons, precisely as an injunctive remedy. The fact that the administrators won't agree is irrelevant. It's easy to go Eeyore. It's hard to make things better. One thing is absolutely clear: the status quo is not working. ] 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*Breaks and sabbaticals are an old-ish idea. I, for one, have floated the "reappointment by review once a year" idea before, with lots of attenuations to prevent the lynchings of RFA, and breaks are a fine thing. In fact, a break to write ''something'' is good. A break to clear backlogs is vital. A break to simply do any one of the thousands of things that are part of the admin task kit without any conversation on project pages would be wonderful. However, that's informal, and we need only announce a league to get that done. I will endorse any such, but it will be meaningless for me to do so, given my usual activity on Misplaced Pages. ] 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


I apologize for the repeated questions about this but I am very frustrated about this, and existing methods of trying to come to some kind of clarity about what our policy actually is have not proven fruitful. It feels like a dispute resolution issue -- there are certain individuals who are giving me more grief about this than others -- but I don't really know the right venue for that, nothing is obvious. ] (]) 18:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
===Wiki-sabbatical?===
:I'm curious as to the source of your interest in archives that the vast majority of readers and editors are unlikely to see. ] (]) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
How about to have a rule that every admin should be temporarily de-sysopped for two months in a year? They should be strongly encourage to use this sabbatical to contribute into the visible areas of the main space. Writing FAs, writing GA, writing DYK-able new articles, mass correction of the category tree - you name it. The benefits are two-fold. The admins would get an insight into the life of a productive editor. You know, fencing off POV-pushers without edit warring, attempts to reach a consensus with the orphanbot, DR with people whose Good Faith you have reasons to doubt. They would also got a vanity list to show those pesky editors then asked about their mainspace contributions. ] 09:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::The source of my interest is that I think vandalism is bad. I don't have a particular interest in archives; they're just what's left now since I've already done the same kind of sweeps for the obvious undetected vandalism in articlespace, Wikidata, Commons, etc.
:I don't see the value of that. This would be pre-emptive. I mean, I am an admin and I mostly do "regular editor" stuff. And I know I'm not the only one. There are just alot of assumptions in your proposal that I don't agree with. It's assuming that admins don't ever act like regular editors or that all they do is act like admins. It's completely incorrect. Even arbcom members do "regular editor" stuff. I am just against anything that makes negative assumptions about anyone, including admins. I think all stuff like this does is feed into the idea that's out there that we're not "real" editors and that we don't care about the quality of the encyclopedia. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::This isn't just my opinion, it's Misplaced Pages policy. It's one of the most fundamental policies we have, just short of ] (you know, the one that says "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited"). It's also more than a little contradictory to claim that archives are not important, yet simultaneously ''so'' important that there are harsher restrictions on editing them than almost anything else on the project. We have a way of indicating things shouldn't be edited, it's called protecting the page (]). ] (]) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::I am sort of doing some editing as well. But I could certainly do more if not have to do the admin staff as well as to monitor the bloody 7K+ watchlist. Still if you look a few sections higher then there are people expressing contempt over respectful admins having much less contributions to the main space. Maybe I should make a wikisabbatical for myself ] 10:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::That doesn't really answer my question; I understand the desire to work against vandalism, but shouldn't you be concentrating on pages that are more visible? We're also not talking about vandalism caught in the moment(i.e. by watching the Recent Changes feed). I'm (and I think others) just wonder if you think that's really the best use of your volunteer time.
:::I don't do any "regular editing", so a forced sabbatical would just mean someone else would need to take up the work at CFD that I'm no longer able to do. Nor would I attempt to do any "regular editing". I'd just sit on the sidelines until my time was up. Not sure how others feel about this, but I don't see how it would help, really. --] 11:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::There are reasons to not routinely protect archives; bots or humans fixing links, for example. ] (]) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Woohookitty, you edit, and I edit. I am quite sure that quite a few of the people advocating unilateralism and power don't do much editing. It's not an assumption as much as inductive reasoning. However, if it is wrong, then the effect would be nil. I.e. people would already satisfy it and not be affected at all. There are some people who would be tremendously discomfitted, though. What is galling is the very real, very easily seen, attitude expressed by many of those who have gotten a little drunk from monolog on private mailing lists and IRC. That said, I do not and have not supported a requirement like this. It ought to simply be a thing we do, and I see the usefulness of calls like this as more rhetorical than actual. ] 11:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:*I may not be understanding the problem but if an editor has vandalized an archived page, it's completely okay to revert that edit. But if an editor has vandalized a regular page and that page THEN gets archived, it should be left alone. But we have vandals causing mischief to, say, ANI archives and their edits are just reverted if they are discovered. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? ]] 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:*::I assume vandalism to archives is rare, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to edit them. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think you should move this complaint to ]. You will get better response there. ] (]) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think {{U|Liz}}'s comments are spot on.--] (]) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"More" response is not always a better response. And I think we addressed Gnomingstuff's question, as much as I understood what they were asking about. It was pretty vague. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Continued subject of a sockpuppet investigation, and request for neutral third party intervention ==
== Issue surrounding ] ==


I am posting this here because I need advice. A couple of weeks ago I was involved in an edit dispute on a contentious topic page, I noticed that an editor had made a serious of edits which seemed to me to be clear violations of NPOV. This was a very senior and experienced editor. I left a message on their talk page regarding it, I was not aggressive or unreasonable. A week later a sockpuppet investigation was initiated by that user into me, claiming that I have sockpuppet accounts, to accounts I have never heard of. They also claimed that I was being aggressive. Despite it initially being set to close by a checkuser, it was re-opened when 'new evidence' was given by the aforementioned user, making claims such as that my 'excessive use of commas' is similar to the other users, and other claims which I see are very much as 'looking for things to find'. Since, other editors have joined the investigation, these users all have edit histories which focus almost entirely on the aforementioned contentious topic area. I feel that all it will take is a rogue admin who also shares the POV (with regard to the contentious topic) and I will be unjustly blocked or somesuch. I am very anxious about this because I have put a lot of work into wikipedia since joining a few weeks ago, and I feel like these editors are targetting me. Is it reasonble of me to ask that there be some guarantee here that the admins, checkusers, and such, who oversee my investigation have a mostly unrelated to this contentious topic area editing interest? I will divulge the details if so, I just want to keep this as brief as possible while I broach this question. Many many thanks ] (]) 19:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
This article, which was created a week ago and had a fact in DYK a couple days ago is being claimed to be completely baseless. I'm mentioning it here and not in an AfD because it looks like it might be somewhat of a public relations issue. This article on a site which is set up like a newspaper (although whether there's a hard-copy version I do not know), appears to be claiming that an official in the Pakistani government has announced that the page is a hoax. There is, however, no question that there is some kind of local control of Waziristan, and that an agreement was made, but whether it's enough to be called a ''de facto'' state is another issue. <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>''']'''</sup>&nbsp;/&nbsp;<sub>''<font color="black">]</font>''</sub>&nbsp;<sup>┐</sup> 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:Hello, ],
:I have a couple of thoughts. First, just chill. Many editors are accused of being sockpuppets, I know I was accused of being a sockpuppet when I first started editing. Your talk about a "rogue admin who shares a POV" is assuming bad faith, especially since the first checkuser who commented cleared you of being a sockpuppet.
:Yes, filing this SPI was probably unnecessary but Icewhiz has been a prolific sockmaster so some longtime editors working in certain subject areas are often trying to identify potential Icewhiz socks they might have created. I'm sure that this report is unnerving to you but it sounds like this event has sent you down a rabbithole that leads you to believe that there is some conspiracy against you. If I were you, I'd a) stop attacking the editor who filed the report, b) stop commenting on the SPI entirely and c) trust that our checkusers know what they are doing and if they find no evidence (which they haven't), they will freely state that there is no connection between editors.
:Also, in case you decide to stay as a regular editor, know that it is important how you "correct" other editors, especially ones that are much more experienced than you. This doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes but you called the other editor's edits "vandalism" and implied they had some sort of bias. Other editors criticized your comments to them. When other editors come to the defense of an editor being accused of misconduct, you should question whether or not your perception was correct and, if it wasn't, you should apologize. Consider that maybe you were being "unreasonable" and be more tactful and less accusatory when you bring up another editor's editing on their User talk page. This is just my 2 cents. Make that 25 cents. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hi. First of all thank-you very much for your reply. I am and have been considerably stressed about this. Being accused so zealously of something which I am totally innocent of is a really nasty feeling. When I was referring to a 'rogue admin', to clarify I mean hypothetically, I am worried about this happening; there is no admin I have in mind. I definitely have not assumed good faith of the editor who initiated the investigation, since it seems so obvious to me that this is a targeted act. I understand how that might sound unreasonable, but it is how they have worded things, being so sure of themselves that I am guilty, and how they have drawn these absurd points of evidence and stated them as if they are damning. I'm sorry but I can't help but be a little emotional about it, my gut tells me that it is targeted so I did not assume good faith. I will stop commenting on the SPI, and take a big step back. I have said all that I wanted to say now anyway. I trust the checkusers, its just the 'new evidence' that really irked me, and I felt that I needed to reach out to someone about it, especially since most of the other editors who have commented on the SPI have the editing history I mentioned - but this is the point which I, as you mention, should in particular hold back on as it is accusative to the editors. Again, I will take a big step back and let the checkusers handle it. Thank-you again for taking the time to reply ] (]) 09:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


==Humans sharing accounts with machines==
==Should ] Remain Fully Protected?==
My apologies, as I'm certain this has already been addressed and I've neglected to keep-up with the latest.<br/>
Approximately ten days ago, I made a request for the unprotection of this page at ] so that I could remove comments made by an indefinitely banned vandal while he was banned, per ]-- see ]. So far, the request has been neither granted nor denied. Since retaining comments made by an indefinitely banned vandal while he was banned seems to encourage other such users to violate their bans, how would one go about getting this page unprotected? ] 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If a human ("Editor ABC") is writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by process of cognition, but is also writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by an LLM (as opposed to merely machine-translating thoughts which originated in their own mind), are we inclined to view this as a violation of our ] policy in that both the human and the LLM are contributing using the same account? Or is the dependence of the LLM on the human to actually post its output to the Talk page sufficient to overcome any concerns about sharing? ] (]) 20:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:There have been several discussions about LLMs, but I don't remember this specific issue being addressed. I would say, as I think about just about everything, that if the editor is upfront and transparent about what they are doing then most things should be allowed, but that if the editor tries to hide things or is sneaky and underhand in any way they should be blocked. ] (]) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:I know there has been a lot of talk but I don't recall anything regarding what you specifically asked. If I understand you correctly anyways... If both talk page posts are coming from the same logged in user and is signed as such, I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between what I actually say versus what an LLM spits out as a response to a prompt generated by that same user. However, that user would be held accountable for both their direct statements, as well as those generated through a LLM, and there is no real excuse that "I didn't mean that" when they posted it, regardless of how the actual text/words were generated. I guess the other way LLM could be used is say to take someone else's post/reply and feed that into an LLM and ask the LLM to generate a response. But again, not sure how big of an issue that is, as long as they're both being attributed to the same person behind the post. They just cannot use some sort of shared account principle as a defense. ]&thinsp;] 22:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd put it this way. If someone is just posting content randomly generated by LLMs, I don't think we need to worry about SHAREDACCOUNT to block them. If someone is asking a LLM to generate something and than posting the output, it's silly to claim that the LLM is somehow 'sharing' the account. ] (]) 08:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:Wouldn't this essentially grant a form of personhood to AI models, something they don't quite deserve yet? I doubt that a dependence on the human to post output is going to be a constraint for much longer. Also, in practice I'm not sure it is going to be possible to distinguish between Editor ABC and augmented-human Editor ABC. I can't even do that with my own stuff where I've noticed that I conveniently forget that it was the GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet copilot that came up with a better solution than me. ] (]) 11:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
:In this case, the disruption from the banned user has already occurred and removing the comments that are integral to an existing archive would cause more disruption than their remaining and would gut the archive. The person already got his laughs; selectively removing the comments isn't going nullify the effect of him violating his ban. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course the comments by the banned vandal have already had some effect, but preserving the trolling contained in these comments indefinitely would seem to magnify their impact -- the comments were offered in a deliberate attempt to disrupt Misplaced Pages by weakening its defenses against vandalism . Avoidance of future disruption that might flow from these comments seems far more important than preserving the coherence of an archived MFD discussion initiated by a banned user. It might actually be advisable to delete all revisions of the discussion that contain the comments, to prevent them from being reinstated later. In any case, as ] protected this page himself, I wanted a "second opinion" on this matter. ] 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:If you could please point to the edits you want removed, that would help someone to give a second opinion. Note also that there's no need to unprotect, you can ask for an {{tl|editprotected}} and if it's necessary an admin can edit the page accordingly. --] (]) 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Personal attacks by ] ==
I removed the comments by the banned user in . ] 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Atop|The OP needs to let go and move on.--] (]) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}


I was to report this here.
:Some of those comments are part of discussions with other users. Taking out the comments breaks the discussion and makes it seem as if those other users are talking to themselves, so I don't think removing them would be the best option. --] (]) 07:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::Just use a placeholder, something like 'comment by banned user removed per ]', and the discussion will look fine. --] 13:42, 20 September 2006 (]]])


The editor in question: {{Userlinks|Remsense}}
== ] ==


* Claiming a user "can't read": . Clear violation of ].
Given , there is reason to believe that ] is a user that is evading a block or ban by creating another account. Is there a way to use Checkuser to determine if this is true? I have no idea what the blocked or banned account might be. --] 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
* Calling a user a "scoundrel": . Clear violation of ].
*Right you are, thanks. He's blocked, and I found and blocked one of his puppets, if there are others they'll turn up soon enough. ] 08:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
* Telling a user "get the hell off my page" for leaving a mandatory notification: . Clear violation of ].
* Claiming a user is "baiting" for seeking enforcement of a 3RR violation . Clear violation of ] and ].
] (]) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Per the helpfully linked diff, I'm not going to be further baited by this person. In disputes like this one I've behaved too cattily for my own liking after being dragged to ANI and the like, and I'd prefer to turn over a new leaf in 2025. If anyone else has questions, let me know. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:@2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C30: You have wasted too much community time. After being reverted at ] (]) you are extending your complaint to here. If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. Discuss disagreements about article content at article talk pages per ]. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::(For the record, I will not be participating in any ] process pertaining to this. I am not interested in correcting the errors introduced to the page at the moment, and trust other editors to competently follow our content guidelines.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:You were ''not'' instructed to report this here. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". ] (]) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
: IP, just ]. Please stop trying to get Remsense sanctioned. It's just gonna get you ] per ], as you haven't shown ''sanctionable and repeated'' misconduct on your diffs. I concur with Phil Bridger. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


{{reply to|Johnuniq}} {{tqi|After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here.}} What does that diff have to do with anything? My complaint at ] was about Remsense's 3RR violation. My complaint here is about their personal attacks. I was directed to report that here.
== Bazzajf ==


{{tqi|If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute.}} For pursuing enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies? What kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is that?
{{user|Bazzajf}} came back from a month-long block to a sanction imposed by ]. His first action was two uncivil user talk edits, so I blocked him. Part of his beef was a protected talk page, so I unprotected that. I've been talking to hiom, trying to eb patient, but I can't seem to make much headway. This user has many prodiuctive edits as well as many bad ones, can someone please help? I do want to unblock him but he seems to think that asking for an assurance he won't reoffend is some kind of effront, and I'm not very good at calm conversations with the pasionate. <b>]</b> 12:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:He does have a way with words, doesn't he... from (presumably his) latest post to the unblock mailing list:
::''Three Admins have enforced the block, one was responsible for imposing it and another was on the receiving end of one of my comments which was deemed incivil in this circumstance. I do not dispute the findings of the arbitration case, but if you analysed my two comments since, they were not personal attacks so I am paying heed to the findings of the case. Furthermore, I am sorry that only 190 edits are too paltry a number for you reflect kindly on but some us have a busy day job too and a social life after work. Is that understood? Good. ''
:So... I'm not sure I'd counsel anything more than letting him ride out the block. ++]: ]/] 13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


{{reply to|Phil Bridger}} {{tqi|You were not instructed to report this here.}} Yes I was. {{tqi|The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if".}} And the antecedent of that "if" is satisfied, as the above diffs show.
== Discussing Special pages ==


{{reply to|Codename_AD}} {{tqi|DROPTHESTICK}} The last retort of someone who knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy.
I've been trying to find a way to discuss some textual changes to the ] page, but it (obviously) doesn't have a talk page. After some investigation, I found an old discussion ] noting that some (but not all) Special pages indeed have custom talk pages. For example, ] can be discussed at ]. Shall we go ahead and create custom talk pages for those Special pages which lack them?


{{tqi|you haven't shown ''sanctionable'' and ''repeated'' misconduct on your diffs}} Yes, I have. How many more examples of Remsense's misconduct do you need? Give a number. ] (]) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Further, how do changes in Special pages actually occur? Back to my original concern, I'd like to change the opening text on ] to state "This is ''an alphabetical'' list of all the categories in Misplaced Pages." In lieu of a talk page, where should such a request be directed? --] (]) 14:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:I have changed ] to include "alphabetical". ] ] 15:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) The talk page for that message is at ]. (The best way to find the appropriate MediaWiki page is to go to ] and use your browser's search-on-page function.) You can request an edit by placing an {{]}} tag there, and administrators can make the edit by editing ]. --] 15:05, 20 September 2006 (]]])
:To your other concerns: Most texts displayed on Special pages are in the MediaWiki namespace. Some can be seen at ] (not this particular one, I found it by searching for the displayed string). ] ] 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::Oh, this one can be found there, I was just too stupid to search. ] ] 15:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::(2 edit conflicts) It seems that due to edit conflicts, Kusma and I have ended up repeating each other. Still, we could do with more people knowing about the MediaWiki namespace... --] 15:09, 20 September 2006 (]]])
:::thanks to both! Didn't know that much special page text is managed via the MediaWiki namespace... --] (]) 15:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


With this blatant administrator abuse and corruption, it's no wonder Misplaced Pages is perceived as a joke by the public nowadays. Circling the wagons to shield a user from rule enforcement and cover for each other's admin abuse.
== Restoring ongoing issue ==


Why do you have such a strong interest in protecting Remsense from Misplaced Pages's rules? Is Remsense part of your "clique"? ] (]) 20:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
==Giano==
'''Note:''' Doc Glasgow was "bold" by archiving the entire discussion (and just this!) because no one came out looking good. I believe that this was inappropriate for several reasons: 1. Several of the topics were still hot, 2. Kelly Martin's assurance of stepping down provided there were requests would be a legitimate AN matter, 3. The underlying issues behind this acrimony will not be resolved by quick archiving and avoidance, 4. It is possible that some of the underlying causes of acrimony and editor disaffection can be found and redressed. It is not bold so much as irresponsible to archive in such a manner. WP: BOLD applies to articles, not to Misplaced Pages space, and not to discussions. Citing it was...incorrect, one might say. ] 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


*'''Blocked'''. For the disruption and personal attacks above and at ], I have blocked 2001:569:7FEA:2900:0:0:0:0/64 for a month. Pinging {{u|Johnuniq}}: will blocking this /64 do it, John? ] &#124; ] 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC).
=== Not quite the idiots you seem to think ===
*:{{re|Bishonen}} My provider gives me /56 and leases of /48 are not unheard of at other providers. ] (]) 01:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I haven't even given anyone a reason to like me that much, so this kind of result only makes sense if I'm demonstrably the duller thorn in the community's side. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 04:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::If anything new turns up, let me or Bishonen know. I am closing this now. ] (]) 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Happy New Year! ==
Sorry to disappoint those who had hoped they had seem the back of me but my attempts to give up wikipedia appear at the moment to be as successful as my many attempts to quit smoking, so I hope this edit will prove to be just one quick gasp. I think one thing we all agree on is that Misplaced Pages has a big problem, apart from me, that is. There is a haemorrhage of quality editors who feel belittled and undervalued by the treatment they receive here by an overbearing and sinister arbcom, and too many little buzzing admins. The only way to rectify this is to allow those valued editors a voice, and a very loud one too. There are many editors, all valued, and contributions range from boring (to me, categories) to writing front page articles, or numerous 500 word pages. There is one chap in wikipedia's basement (I will not embarrass him here, but I'll email his name to anyone who asks) who should be lauded and barnstarred for his work in categories, but I doubt many of you have ever heard of him.
{{atop|result=Happy New Year to all editors on this project! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Happy New Year to the administrators of the English Misplaced Pages! Here's to a vandal-free 2025. <small>Well, as vandal-free as y'all can get without having no more work left to do.</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:Happy New Year to the whole English Misplaced Pages community! ] (]) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
: Thank you. And Happy New Year to the non-admin watchers here too. ] ] 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::The most I can muster, to all editors, is after 2024, I hope all of your 2025s are better than you expect them to be! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


{{abot}}
The arbcom are now teetering on the edge of losing control - as demonstrated by the bizarre attitudes and sayings here of J Forrester and Kelly Martin (James don't ever join the army - your men would shoot you in the back if you behaved like that - you are an officer here, behave like one). As for Kelly Martin her unpleasant veiled threat to Geogre is despicable. In my view her repeated overbearing pronouncements make her unfit for the sensitive office she assumes.


== Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025 ==
At the moment the arbcom have lost touch and need to be re-ordered. This can be achieved simply and painlessly: J Forrester and K Martin who have shown their majestic lack of appreciation of the mood of the encyclopedia, should resign immediately, in Martin's case also all sysop and any other rights she may have. This will immediately prove to the editorship that there is change is in the air. Tony Sidaway needs to be prevented from arbcom clerking permanently, and as for Carnildo, whose RFA began this whole affair, well not much can be done there - he is once again an admin - so leave it alone.


At their request, the CheckUser access of ] is removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks them for their service.
Following the resignations (dismissal if necessary) of J Forrester and Kelly Martin a selection of highly valued and respected contributing editors should offer themselves in an extraordinary election to the arbcom, with two of them being elected. Geogre, Bishonen, ALoan immediately spring to mind, but their must be many others in other corners of the encyclopedia, the net should not be confined to admins but to the rank and file, one does not need a block button to have a worthy opinion - even here.


On behalf of the Committee, ] (]) 00:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I would advise debate on this now, but not for too long, the arbcom can save itself or throw itself on the mercy of the encyclopedia - the encyclopedia being its editors. ] 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025}}'''<!-- ] (]) 00:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->


== RM completion request ==
:::Sorry Kelly, I only just saw your question the answer is "Arbitrator Emeritus", CheckUser and oversight rights, and Admin, in fact all those rights you advertise on your page. You have the golden opportunity to help write the encyclopedia as member of what you so eloquently term the "'''''fickle and ill-informed populace'''''." . ] 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Done —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Please carry out the moves at ]. I was attempting to close it, but got rate-limited because of the sheer number of pages in question. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I believe it's impossible to resign as "Arbitrator Emeritus", insofar as that position is defined by being a former Arbitrator. The only way for me to cease to hold that position is to become, once again, an Arbitrator, and I doubt that Jimbo would consent to appoint me as such. In any case, that title entails no rights. And I do actually contribute to the encyclopedia, although a significant fraction of my recent encyclopedic edits have been on a different account (yes, I have a sockpuppet; four, in fact, although only one has been used recently). Lately, however, I have not been very active, as my obligations to family and work have left relatively little time to do much more than what I do for the Foundation in my various roles held there (which are explicitly not subject to this offer of resignation; I will not be resigning from the Communications Committee or quitting OTRS). I also contribute to the Wikimedia Commons. I may not have the time or the writing talent to spew forth featured article material at the same rate that you do, but for you to claim that I do not meaningfully contribute to Wikimedia projects is both ill-informed and offensive. ] (]) 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:Doing... ] (]) 06:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::*All these bodily functions here... articles are not "spewed" they are written. You, Sidaway and his boils, JForrester and his idiots are a disgrace to the leadership of an encyclopedia. To think these are our "front men/woman" and leaders who Jimbo hopes will attract in more Academics as editors - some hope! The sooner you lot go the better for the encyclopedia. ] 07:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::And done. ] (]) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] ==
:I have consented to comply with Giano's demands on the condition that he must enlist Geogre, Bishonen, and two other admins to make them as well. ] (]) 21:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Done —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Hi, This is now in the public domain in France, but I can't move this file to Commons because the first version is hidden. Please help. Thanks, ] (]) 14:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think you will note I said "dismissal if necessary" - your peers can decide - you and your colleagues are now so out of touch it doesn't really matter how you go, just so long as you go. ] 21:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:], I've deleted the hidden revision, you should be able to move it now.<span id="Masem:1735741442015:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 14:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
{{abot}}


== an obstacle to translation ==
:This proposal would be a step in the right direction if executed. --] - '']'' - ] 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Atop|This does not require administrator intervention.--] (]) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}


I was going to translate the article ] into Persian. While translating, I noticed that the title of the article and some of its content about the Persian Misplaced Pages were not cited. I contacted the author (])of the article but have not received a satisfactory answer yet. Please look into the matter. ] (]) 16:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well then we make it happen, we can either lie down and suffer this tyranny, threats and blocks, or we do something about it. To throw the whole lot of them out would de-stabilise the encyclopedia and ultimately be a bad thing, so we kick out those who seem to be most out of touch and menacing, replace them with those we trust, and then see what happens. Raul, Mindspilage etc the sensible hard working ones remain and give a sense of reason and continuity. Seems like rational common sense to me. ] 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Incivility at ] ==
:I disagree with your proposal of removing Tony Sidaway as clerk. Giving him a job that basically amounts to shuffling people's complaints around and generally acting as page boy is a great idea - because it's Arbcom-related it sounds important, but it keeps him away from real work that would require him to exercise judgement, such as Articles for Deletion, at which Deletion Review has frequently shown up his incompetence. If only the Arbcom could think up more such jobs for him we could keep him too busy to make these pointless and posturing blocks as well. 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


@] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have only just seen this, as I had hoped that my absence from AN would make my heart grow less rancorous. I don't know about the Kelly suggestion yet. I am not going to rush, but there is something I have restrained from saying that now has to be said, if only for clarity: Kelly Martin is not a member of the Arbitration Committee, although James F is. When this iteration of ArbCom was constituted, it was a serious bone of contention whether former ArbCom members be allowed access to the ArbCom mailing list. That was handled as too many things have been handled, by being shuffled away from wiki and onto the mailing list itself. I had no idea whether they continued to have access or not until Kelly said that behavior "is being examined" and that behavior "had been broached" on the list, which made it clear that access was still there. I will say no more, although I cannot say that I disagree with James Forrester's stepping down in any respect. I have not seen his name on any actual ArbCom cases lately, have not had a single pleasant conversation with him (and the only opportunities have been on IRC, as I have never once run into him on-wiki, except in occasions like this, when his comments have been boorish at least and consistently implied his patriarchy over all the little writers who swarm about in the dark). For the rest, I will hold my peace for the moment and have something to say tomorrow (US). ] 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This seems a bit harsh to me. You have one somewhat curt run-in with JamesF and immediately you're calling for his resignation? People might take you a bit more seriously if you didn't call for outrageous punishments that go far beyond the pail of any possible consequences that might be necessary for the actions under consideration. It's like the constant stream of people demanding desysoppings on ANI, only moreso I suppose, since ArbCom is a much more vaunted position than administrator. --] 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request removal of PMR/Rollback ==
: I don't think JamesF is a substantial issue here. However, to be blunt both Kelly and Tony have highly problematic and continue to do so. However, of the discussed people only Tony as far as I can see has engaged in what may constitute an abuse of admin tools. (This is not to say I am supporting Giano here just clarifying what I see as the central problem). ] 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
:::*'''The central problem''' is that the arbcom blindly presides over all this mess, and needs to be reformed. I don't think I have ever had any one to one dealings with J Forrester, I gauge him by his performance. Kelly Martin rules through threats and put downs. I'm sure there are other members of the arbcom equally worthy of disposal, but I want reform not a revolution. I'm not calling for Tony Sidaway's desysoping either, the reformed Arbcom can deal with him as best they see fit. If Kelly Martin won't go peacefully, then she must be dismissed by whoever has the authority to do so. She may not officially be on the arbcom but he emeritus obviously gives her certain rights or why use the title, and as for all her other "positions" - we need a clean sweep they can go too. I don't even want to erode the Arbcom's powers, just have a better Misplaced Pages, one ruled by people who understand the aims, encourage writing, and have a more just sense of maintaining order. We don't have to live with being afraid to voice our views on what is wrong . Just out of interest unlike some I'm not controlling an army of thought through email, and I haver been on IRC. If you lose this opportunity for reform I doubt there will be another. I just want to refer to "'''our Arbcom'''". ] 06:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
| result = Flags removed ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::*Clerk is actually a rather necessary position now. ArbCom deals with so many cases that lots and lots of text needs to be shuffled around, various subpages need to be created, rulings need to be announced, etc. None of these actions require any discretion &mdash; it's just following the same old procedure, using certain templates, and counting votes rigorously &mdash; and so they should be dealt with by people other than ArbCom, as ArbCom members should be spending all available time on the actual cases (God knows cases run slowly enough as it is, imagine if they had to do all of the technical stuff too). --] 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
}}
:::::*At the heart of this is the divide between people who write the encyclopedia, on the one hand, and people who don't but who nevertheless have a bewildering attitude of superiority toward those who do. If any good comes of this episode, it'll be that we learn to cherish good editors, because we have precious few of them. I'm not talking about subject specialists necessarily (who are no more guaranteed to be good editors than anyone else), but people like A Loan, Bishonen, Geogre, Giano, and so on, whose contributions are regular, substantial, and of a consistently high quality. The Foundation has said it wants to concentrate on quality now, not quantity, so we need to keep and attract excellent editors, and we need them as admins and arbitrators too. That the best of our editors are being looked down on by people who don't edit articles is an unsustainable situation. Imagine the management of the ''Encyclopaedia Britannica'' telling its very best writers that they're idiots and boils that need to be lanced. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>] ] 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::*I concur with SlimVirgin. I'm not interested in namespace editing, admin tools, and featured content, so I'm sure that most admins don't know my name, because I work primarily in main space and don't spend some 10+ hours a day on IRC, which gives you a significant popularity boost. For me, this project is not a ]: I have my native Misplaced Pages to move to when the times are nasty here and I also hope that ] will finally take flight. So I'd not be hurt if my comments are edited out and I'm blocked for sharing them, as I was in the past. My opinion is as follows. Quality editors can't edit in peace like they used to; ]s wouldn't change ]. The main flaw of the existing project is a stratum of non-editing ] presiding over masses of hard working editors. They spend some 10+ hours a day on IRC, with 15 piddly edits per day in main space (mainly vandalism reversions), while there are numerous backlogs waiting for admin action. It's time to understand that it's not people like Tony Sidaway who have made Misplaced Pages into the Top 13. Non-writing admins are expendable; quality editors are not. I hope that Tony, Kelly, Dmc and others will write at the top of their talk pages: "We are here to write an encyclopaedia; my motto is NN main space edits each day!" This will be the first step towards normalizing the situation, which Tony already termed a . --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 08:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ] (]) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
:::::::*I want to add that there are ways of contributing to Misplaced Pages that don't involve writing articles. It's just the attitude of superiority that has to go. This is a collaborative effort. Our aim should be, not a heirarchy, but a core of excellence in writing and research, with everyone contributing in whatever way they can to its sustenance. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: Yes. What we have here is actually a quite typical example of an organization crumbling under the weight and the wannabe superiority of its own internal bureaucracy. As time passes, bureaucrats (in the general sense of the word, not the WP one, mind you) tend to forget what they're here for and tend to consider their own existence as the goal - not the organization they're working for. Unless someone reverses the trend that is.
::::::::: And if one looks closely, there are plenty of people who are both excellent contributors and excellent admins or ArbCom members. I hate to make examples because it sounds silly, but just look at SimonP, Bishonen, Raul or Kirill - all are admins '''and''' excellent writers with FAs on their display. That's what we should aim for. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Jayjg too; he's on the Arbcom, he's a featured article writer, and he continues to edit regularly. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::: The exemples provided are by no means a complete list :))) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
I think both sides of this debate need to step back and realise that they are both, in the end, working towards the same goal. It's a shame to see people implying that because they contribute a lot of content they have more legitimacy as Wikipedians than others who take on more administrative roles; vice versa it's very disturbing to read those with administrative roles trying to adopt a position of superiority simply because they administrate.
After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The first group need to realise that people who don't contribute much raw content are often doing a huge amount of work for the encyclopaedia: resolving disputes, handling correspondence in OTRS, dealing with the press, and so on. Meanwhile, the second group need to realise that there wouldn't ''be'' an encyclopaedia to work with if it weren't for people contributing content.
In the end, all these jobs are important. --ⁿɡ͡b ]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">]</sup> 09:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
: Yes, but one must not show such a contemptuous superiority because he or she has the shiny buttons while the others are "fickle and well-informed populace" (dixit Kelly Martin). It is an attitude problem here... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


== Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
:: By and large, the "fickle and ill-informed populace" (note: ill, not well) refers not to the dedicated editors editing content, but indeed to the people who are trying to game our system to illegitimately obtain social standing. If Ghirl, Giano, and Geogre think that I'm referring to them when I say that, they are sadly mistaken.
{{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to ] due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is . In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at ] where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to {{U|Alex Shih}} who implemented the topic ban in the first place . ]] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. ] (]) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more ]. ] ] 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Endorse lifting TBAN per above. ] (]) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Endorse removal of topic ban. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Endorse removal of topic ban per ]. ] (]) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages ==
:: There are not two groups in Misplaced Pages, but (at least) three. There are those who tirelessly write the encyclopedia. There are those who tirelessly manage the encyclopedia. And then there are those who parasite on the encyclopedia project. The problem, as I see it, is that the people in the first group are failing to distinguish the people in the second group from the people in the third group. And those of us in the second group sometimes have trouble distinguishing those in the first group from those in the third, too. ] (]) 11:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<s>I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:


=== Evidence ===
:I would think that the goal of Misplaced Pages is to create the main space content not to be a social club or an exersice in governance. The productive editors create this content. The prolific productive editors create the matrix that keeps all this material together. Without them the project would not be much different from the amorphous mass of blogs indexed by Google. The only role of admins is to keep productive editors and especially prolific productive editors in a comfortable working conditions. That is the only worthy duty for me, Slim Virgin (admin), Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway is to make Ghirlandajo, George, Giakomo, Halibutt, Slim Virgin (editor), Renata3, the secret sock of Kelly Martin that she uses to write content from and all of the others to feel happy, protected and appreciated. There is no other valid goal in our existence. We are to endure great pains and abuse just to give these people protection and comfortable working conditions. Writing content by admins is not required for that duty but greatly helps. It provides useable insights as well as some sort of a positive experience for a change. I am sorry, but if any admin believes that the editors are for them to feel self-important not the other way around, then he or she should go. I hope there are very few many admins of that sort. ] 09:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
1. – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions.


2.
::I agree to a certain extent, with the key proviso that we are there as administrators to make others 'feel happy, protected and appreciated' as far as they are working to improve the encyclopaedia: our ultimate goal here is a great encyclopaedia, not a community of happy people. The second is important in achieiving the first, but shouldn't override it. So, to pluck an entirely random example unrelated to any of the disputants here, if we have a fantastic editor who has contributed to many FAs but who persists in uploading copyright violations then I am going to disregard his feelings of happiness and comfort and block him, because his actions are damaging to the encylclopaedia. --ⁿɡ͡b ]<span style="padding: 0 0.1em;">\</span><sup style="font-size: 70%;">]</sup> 11:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
– In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.


3.
::: The real problem arises (as it recently has) when either prolific editors or prolific administrators become divas, and by so doing interfere with the harmonious editing environment. If you are a prolific editor and start arguing that you should get leeway because you are a prolific editor, then you have become a diva, and you need to stop and reconsider your actions. If you are an administrator and start arguing that you should get leeway because of all you do to "protect the encyclopedia", you also have become a diva and need to stop and reconsider your actions. Being a prolific editor is not a free pass from the obligation to maintain a harmonious editing environment. If you are a prolific editor and your actions are making other editors feel unhappy, unprotected, or unappreciated, then ''you'' are part of the problem and need to be dealt with. ] (]) 12:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
– In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.


4.
::::I find myself agreeing with abakharev and with Nick, as far as they go... that this project is an encyclopedia. Everything else has to support that, and we all should in particular, support the creation of good content. But where they fall short, where I get the disconnect is how some editor being incivil, nasty, or incollegial contributes to that process in any way. What seems lost in all this is that this started, or came to a head at any rate. It is because someone (one of our good contributors, yes... but good contributions DO NOT GET YOU A FREE PASS) was acting the prat (and not just one time, to be sure). I don't see how his good contributions excuse his prattishness. If they do that is indeed diva-ness and Kelly has it exactly right. All this speaking of revolution is just folderol. ++]: ]/] 12:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated ] for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the ]. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.


5.
:::::Poor Lar, you have not grasped it, you are just like Tony Sidaway with his post about a coupe d'etat, it is not revolution but reform of which we are talking - to talk of revolution is to be a drama queen, neither are we talking about people uploading copyright images and breaking national laws, and to do so is digression - no-one disputes that is wrong. Kelly Martin has belittled and threatened many good editors and brought this situation entirely upon herself, and now it is time for her to go. If there is a diva here, it is her, frantically trying to save herself. The Arbcom have allowed Tony Sidaway to run amok in an orgy of bannings and insults. They have allowed him to preside over the RFA page as though it is his personal page. When people ask them to do something about the situation they ignore them, and when finally some of them do appear here it is to deliver more insults on editors. The arbcom needs to wake up and reform, only they can do anything about it, and they can begin by removing Kelly Martin's power to threaten, and then remove for J Forrester for his complete lack of effort on Arbcom cases, and ability to be civil. Show ordinary editors a real commitment to reform and appreciation of their past mistakes. ] 12:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to ] and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, ] was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since ] was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.


] (]) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.
:::::::Giano, I didn't want to continue this discussion with people who had not written an article in the last half a year, but I feel obliged to defend Kelly here. Unlike Lar, Doc, and other IRC-style-talking admins whose main space edits are negligible and admin effectiveness is not apparent either, I've seen Kelly do a lot of good to the project. Neither did I see Kelly abusing her tools. I can't agree with her in that a prolific editor makes other editors feel unhappy, unprotected, or unappreciated. Only a block-happy admin does. Actually, some of Kelly's own assertions made wikipedians like me feel "unhappy, unprotected, and unappreciated". What she calls a "diva" is termed an "expendable cog" by many other wikipedians. But it was not she who hastened to block her opponents. I believe that only return to main-space editing is a solution. Otherwise, some non-editing wikipedians will always be more equal than others, as is the case now. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


6. List affected articles: ], ], etc.
::::::::Oh yes, prolific editors can make other editors feel unhappy, unprotected, and unappreciated. I have heard that you have changed (improved) Ghirlandajo, so don't see this as a current complaint, but you were (for me) ''the'' example of a prolific editor acting as a diva, insulting other editors, and make them feel unappreciated. I did not leave Misplaced Pages over it, I just tried to edit only a group of articles I thought you would tay out of, so that I didn't have to meet you and your comments again. I agree that diva admins are a bad thing, but they are not the only ones that are a danger to the project, and you, with your history here, should know better than to act as if admins are the only ones making editors unhappy and feeling unappreciated. ] 13:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


=== Context ===
:::::::::Since it appears I wasn't clear enough, let me point out that prolific editors in and of themselves do not make other editors feel unhappy. Simply that SOME of them do, through their conduct when they're not being prolific editors (or even as they are: edit summaries can be uncivil too). Some prolific editors have been known to revert war, to be uncivil, or to otherwise edit tendentiously. And when they do these things, their prolificness is not a defense. Whether you have no FAs or 1000 FAs, you are still obliged to follow the rules of the community.
- This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today.
- I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.


I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
:::::::::As an aside, I have, in fact, created at least one article in the past six months: ], which appeared on the front page recently in the "Did You Know" section. Yeah, not likely to become a featured article, but Bubba made the front page of the ''Chicago Tribune'', and I figured it was good enough for an article. I've started a few others (], ], ]) as well; I don't keep track of them anymore. Just last night I made substantial contributions to ]. We each contribute in our own way; to try to assign priority values to indivdual modes of contribution is divisive and pointless, so let's stop it already, ok? ] (]) 14:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice-->. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.


] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
::::::So dramatic is your rhetoric, but you fail to address the actual salient point I made, this started because you, apparently thinking you had a free pass, acted the prat. That you might be right about other things really doesn't excuse that. That others may have been incivil, or even far worse, to you in the past, really doesn't excuse that. No one has a free pass, and no one should go about agitating for revolution/reform/revolt/re-whatever in response to someone pointing out they were being a prat. Stop acting such a prat, and be more civil than those you think are misguided, rather than less civil. Really, it's that simple. All this sturm und drang could be avoided if everyone was nicer, and didn't fly off the handle when reminded that perhaps something they said wasn't nice, and politely were asked to tone it down a bit. ++]: ]/] 12:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


:First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in ]. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our ] before resuming editing. ] 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: I believe Giano has every right to discuss the problems and propose a reform. It is not he who is the problem. Where is ]? Where is ]? Where is ]? Where is ]? Giano is the only one who had the guts to discuss the problems which force the finest contributors to leave Misplaced Pages these days. And I may say, after talking privately with many wikipedians, that your own dismissive statements don't add motivation for people to stay in the project. Please cool off and assume good faith. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
:*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability).
:*Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
:*I then commented on ] because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark ] on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
:*On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that ] had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, ], with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have ] concerns and I don't think he passes ]) and also nominate ], which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
:*In addition, I would like to question whether there is ] going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in ]... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. ]&nbsp;] 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The exact text from the source is {{quote|"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."}} The source says exactly what you just quoted. ] (]) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". ]&nbsp;] 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of ] going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. ]] 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Right is Might ===
It appears there is a group of good and established editors who are unhappy with the way power is being exercised. My observation is that, however much you say that a position is just extra work with no real power, people holding such a position will come to believe the power is theirs to exercise as they see fit. I suggest like minded editors set up an alternative to see if it works better - a people's Arbcom. Without any official power - and hence no possible reliance on Might is Right - this will be forced to come up with good solutions (consensus in fact) which can be adopted by the various parties. People who genuinely want to find good solutions and improve the working environment can go to this group of editors for arbitration, whose might would come from being right. So I say to all the disgruntled editors: ''Would you be prepared to join such a group?''. There are many clearly qualified members - Newyorkbrad, for example. Elections could be conducted using a sensible system like ] to ensure a representative group. I have some ideas on how this could work on a wiki where people come and go. So rather than good editors leaving, let's make a bit of the system you like, and use that. ] 08:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like " is vandalizing '''my''' pages" ('''emphasis''' added). {{ping|NovembersHeartbeat}}, I would strongly advise that you read ], ], ], and ]. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to ] as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but ]. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. ] (]) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
===Who appointed the demagogues?===
{{abot}}
I can't believe this thread. 'Attitudes of superiority'? Arrogance cuts two ways, you know. Consider for a moment the arrorance of the perenial person (Geogre and Giano are just the latest, before them there was Karmafist and GodofWar and ....so on), this person who fills themself with the delusion that they are the authentic prophetic 'voice of the voiceless' who can, without mandate, pronounce 'thus sayeth the community' and assume some ] power to desysop and demote their enemies. Don't be so bloody presumptious. Stop the demagoguery. The problem with the silent majority, is that we don't know wht they think, because......they are silent! --] 08:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::Equating Geogre with God of War/Kamafist is....not accurate. ] 13:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Perhaps not. Although it may becoming less inappropriate. However, my wider point is that the history of epopel who believed they could speak for the masses ... is not a happy one. Perhaps they should simply give their own oppinions.--] 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::And risk getting blocked for holding unpopular opinions? --] <small>]</small> 15:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Oh yes, that's really what happens. That's why you and everyone else in this threat are currently blocked. Look, this is hot enough without your conventional trolling.--] 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Happens enough to note it. Your personal attack is entirely unnecessary, especially in this context. --] <small>]</small> 16:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Well, Giano and Ghirla got blocked, didn't they? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
: This is why elections are good. And if there is no official power for this group, they will have to rule by strength of argument and consensus, which is what they are asking for from exisiting people. Who knows if it would work, but in my experience, most issues here are solvable with a bit of goodwill and understanding - provided that people take part and do not see themselves above the law. ] 08:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
::Erm, we had elections siv months ago, remember. The current arbcom topped the poll. Why do you assume that new elections would elect different people? You again presume too much. And if you don't like those a new election throws up, will you then call for a fresh revolution. You don't like the result, so make them vote again, huh? ] a democracy, but ] Trotskyite either.--] 09:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I have been working on the article ] with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. {{U|FlightTime}} took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December , without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had , and . At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.


However, today, they of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.
*Your statements are factually incorrect, and you believe that I am assuming the Voice when I have established for you, more than once, that I was speaking of evidence. If you will not inform yourself or listen to others, then at least stop making accusations. This ArbCom did not "top the polls." Some who were picked in fact '''left in disgust'''. Where is Filiocht now? Like I said: please inform yourself or stop making accusations. I'd settle for either. ] 15:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
**No, my statement is correct. The current Arbcom did all achieve very high poll ratings, and those at the very top of the poll were appointed - plus a few others who'd also polled very highly. But this is a technicallity. You keep claiming to speak for the people, by what authority? I look forward to you putting yourself forward in the Decemeber elections. If you are right about the community being behind you, rather than, say, JamesF, then I expect you'll poll a lot higher than he did. Then youy'll be able to speak on behalf of those that have agreed with you. Until then, perhaps I should calm down, and perhaps you and others would confine yourself to giving your opinions and not claiming a popular authority you have not earned.--] 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
***I have never chosen to stand for ArbCom, and I will not be taunted into it. However, I speak for the evidence of departures. You speak for... for... an assumption that I must be putting on airs? The list of people who have quit or gone on break over precisely these people acting in precisely this way is long, and the names have one thing in common: they were all long time users and all heavy content providers. I have generally avoided denigrating the work done by developers, but I will be happy to denigrate people who box war, Doc, and who spend their time on talk pages instead of writing, and losing this many writers so that we can retain, '''without examination in any public forum''' the behavior of Kelly (not on ArbCom, but speaking for it) and Tony Sidaway (and we can add other names as well, if needed, such as Phil Sandifer) is the sort of calculus only a fool could think worked out. Evidence, Doc, not assumed voice of all. We know they left. We know why. We know how. The ones happy as pigs in a stigh to be ordered about are not our concern when addressing problems. ] 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
** Unless I am grossly misinformed, Filiocht has been away since last December due to serious medical issues (at least, that's what Bishonen shared with several of us back in February). For you to suggest that his absence is due to "disgust" means either you have information that has not been shared with the rest of the community, or you are being disingenious. Given that Filiocht has edited a few times since then, but only to note that he is away indefinitely, I think you should refrain from imputing motives to his absence. ] (]) 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
***Kelly, you are grossly mistaken. I will not "prove" this in the definitive way that I can. Instead, I will merely invite you to investigate, as Filiocht's talk pages had plenty of evidence of his disgust. ] 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::: You will observe that I'm not one of the editors considering leaving, or expressing discontent with Arbcom. The reality is that some people will always be more interested in attaining power than finding the wisdom to use it well. If I'm ever elected to Arbcom, I'll work towards getting the parties to agree, rather than implementing decisions by force. ] 09:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.
:::Yeah fine - stand for AC, but if you want to mediate medcom might suit you better. Arbcom seems to oftendeal with people who are waaaay beyond softly-softly. But I'd actually say that it is the ranting demagogues above who seem to me to be throwing demands about without wisdom or restraint. That's idiocy in plently. --] 09:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
: Doc, just because you don't see them talking does not mean they aren't. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::Eh? So you know what the consensus of our thousands of silent editors is? My point is, that the last time we got anything like a reasonably large sample of wikipedians together (and even that was tiny)....and they spoke.... they ....elected the arbcom. So, I'd say JamesF has more legitimacy in speaking for the people (and even he isn't claiming that) than the 'idiotic' ranters.--] 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*I can live with the insults "arrorance of the perenial person (''Geogre and Giano are just the latest, before them there was Karmafist and GodofWar and ....so on'')" - The truth is the Arbcom have been repeatedly asked to sort this mess out, they have remained aloof and distant, now it is too late, and they still are doing nothing. The "powerless editors arbcom" is a lovely idea, but sadly every time the real Arbcom disliked one of their motions or views their clerk would block or delete, supported by his ill-informed and out of touch masters. I think people here are quite capable of forming their own opinions now, and if the Arbcom don't act soon then what little confidence people have in them will completely evaporate. Obviously they feel if they do nothing the "''ill informed populace''" will return to work. Sadly they are probably right for once. ] 09:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:Your arrogance astounds me. 'What little confidence ''people'' have in them will completely evaporate'. Despite all I said, you continue to offer yourself as the legitimate voice of the people. This is madness. Are you indeed crazy?--] 09:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:: Giano is not offering himself, he merely expresses a point a lot of people do as well. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I suggest we all give this particular thread a rest for a few hours. There's really no need to tear into each other over Misplaced Pages politics. How about a ceasefire? -]<sup>(])</sup> 09:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::For the record: I have '''never''' been an admin. I '''never will''' be an admin or member of the the Arbcom. To Bacchus - We cannot keep backing away from these issues, they have to be faced or Misplaced Pages will not survive its up and coming competitors ] 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Giano, that's fine, but that's not an argument against anyone who's actually upset walking away for ''a few hours''. That's all I'm saying. Believe me, I'm with you, about wanting to deal with this issue this month, as opposed to next year, but maybe tonight it's time for a beer, or a cup of tea, or whatever, you know? -]<sup>(])</sup> 10:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::Doc, he speaks the truth, and just because people are either afraid to speak up or feel it's futile to do so doesn't mean they don't feel this way. Let's just say that challenging the percieved cabalistic establishment rarely results in a good experience for people, and after being beat down time and time again, you can't expect people who won't speak up because they've been hit so hard when they do to arrive here, and you can't take such experiences as evidence that people don't feel this way. It's not arrogant to assume you're the voice of the people when you're saying exactly the same thing you've heard time and time again. --] <small>]</small> 11:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Yup, you speak to your pals and they agree with you. I speak to mine and they say something else. That's the way it is. I'm not saying that the masses don't agree with Giano, I'm saying that I've no idea what they thing, and neither does he. The last time we asked a significant number of Wikipediasn to express an opinion on the community's direction, they elected the arbcom. Hundreds of people supported each one of them. That's the only real data we have, the rest is anecdote and assertion.--] 11:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been horrified by aspects of this whole discussion, which prompts me to make the following modest points that appear, at times, to have been overlooked. I hope they do not appear trite, but I feel the need to say them anyway. All Wikipedians are also people. Nothing on Misplaced Pages is irreversible, except personal disservices. The article namespace is Misplaced Pages's only product: all the other namespaces (including all policy) are purely ancillary. Membership of the arbitration committee is purely ancillary, and confers no mandate to preside or superintend, but only to rule formally on actions formally brought to their attention. In their Misplaced Pages-related activities the arbcom should be under no more scrutiny than any other Wikipedian, except when acting on arbcom business. However, they may consider that the fragility of the trust vested in them makes each of their actions and opinions more prominent, and accordingly more thoughtfully to be weighed before its final submission. ''Former'' arbcom members are currently discharged from that position (I believe ''emeritus'' means ''earned one's discharge by service''). Clerks are personally accountable for any clerk's duties they undertake. A clerk's duties generally involve record-keeping in the interests of transparency, and correspondence to convey information. There is no mention of "clerks" on ]. --] &#9836; ] 10:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:That is well stated, RobertG. Another important facet is that Misplaced Pages was set up with a flat hierarchy. It initially had ''no'' top-down order at all, and it is still constitutionally designed that way. Despite this, Doc's comments continue, despite the rhetorical scorching of the last time, to imply that ArbCom is '''government.''' I remind him, and I especially remind it, that it is ''merely a dispute resolution body'' and possesses no mandate, no power, no license except in those highly limited circumstances where a case is formally brought before it. The members of this body were not democratically elected. They did not get hundreds of votes each, and that was a terrible mistake, as it involved a mixed message to the site. I am no great believer in the votes as they were going, mind you, as it appeared that hundreds were voting without any knowledge of the candidates beyond their statements, but, regardless, it was a mixed anti-democratic and democratic exercise that set the stage for part of this confusion. Remember, Doc: they are not a government. Remember, ArbCom: you are no more than users. You have no magic grease, no ] that makes you holy. No red heiffer was sacrificed for you, as Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a flat structure. This ''can be'' easily demonstrated, but with disasterous effects, by simple "civil disobedience" (something I do not call for nor endorse). Arbitrators have power only so long as fellow administrators and editors enact it. ] 15:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::I never claimed arbcom were a government - we have no such thing. I was responding to the absurd notion that a few individuals like you could presume to speak for the 'people' against JamesF and his 'Committee on Public Saftey'. My point was simply that arbcom members have individualy shown that they enjoy the overwhelming respect from a large majority of the users who voted in the election. So, for all you know, the 'people' may more agree with JamesF's decription of idiocy, than your positions. That's all.--] 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


: This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. ] (]) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Um... ===
:I'm not sure what you mean {{tq|without any explanation}} as his clearly documents his reason as {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR}}. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: ] or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at ] and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. ]&thinsp;] 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
George has implied above that several arbitrators quit in "disgust." Kelly Martin has already pointed out that if this was case with Filiocht, this is news to everyone, including I suspect Filiocht. That brings us to the other dropout. I resigned as an arbitrator in February; the 19th if I'm not mistaken. This is a matter of public record. My reasons for doing so are not, as one can see from older versions of my user page. While I discussed the matter privately with several individuals, including Jimbo, I certainly never did so with Geogre.
::Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. ] (]) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Emoji redirect ==
I'm rather intrigued that George thinks he knows my own mind better than I do. If I thinks I left the committee because I was disgusted with it, he's out of his mind. I had good and continue to maintain good relations with the active and inactive arbitrators, many of whom I'd worked with well beforehand (indeed, I prefer to be on good terms with people, when it's all said and done). The insinuation that the case is otherwise is a vile and filthy lie that he is patently incapable of backing up.
{{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Was trying to create ] as a redirect to ]; the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the ] aka the ]. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{Done}}. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I resigned from the committee because of stress over userboxes (and conflicts over them with other sysops), combined with personal pressures and other factors, had pushed me to the breaking point. When I resigned on the 19th I didn't have any intention of coming back at all. In fact, only the kind intervention of an arbitrator, whom shall remain nameless, stopped me from handing back the sysop bit until I'd had a day or two to reconsider. As it happens, I did reconsider, and gradually re-entered the community and the project, albeit in a very different role. I resigned in disgust, all right, but not with the Arbitration Committee.
{{abot}}


== Topic ban appeal ==
So, tell me Geogre, who are the arbitrators who resigned in disgust at the committee? Are we forgetting somebody? Or are you making up facts to push your point? ] ] 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*I had said that several people had quit in disgust. As for ''how'' I know why Filiocht left, I do not choose to indicate, but I do know it, and it would not be news to him. If, indeed, you had looked at his user page prior to the ArbCom elections, it would not be news to you, either. Had you been speaking to him at all, it would not be news, as Filiocht was ''extremely'' upset with...guess what? the very same issues being discussed here. As for you, I have no knowledge of why you resigned. So the answer to your false dichotomy is "neither." I am not making up facts nor am I suggesting that I know your mind, and I find your own rage here puzzling. If you believe that the current ArbCom "topped the polls," please say so. If you believe that they are a government, please indicate that. Otherwise, my point remains that Doc's argument is spurious: ArbCom is not the government and is not democratic. ] 16:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
**You said some '''arbitrators''', Geogre. Some implies more than one; and you statement suggested to some people that I resigned in disgust. I came hear to clear the matter up. You may wish to consider being more careful with your language in the future. Regarding Filiocht, the only clue I found was here , where he expressed disquiet with RfA-style voting. He left a long time ago, for that matter&ndash;well before the elections. I've no opinion on what Doc said, I'm here setting matters straight. ] ] 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*If I implied more than one, I had evidence only for one. I choose not to share that evidence. Therefore, you are free to not believe me, if you choose.
*However, who on earth said this was about "disgust with ArbCom?" It isn't. It's about disgust with power centers. As has been stated several times: neither Tony Sidaway nor Kelly Martin are members of ArbCom. It is true that James Forrester is, but the disgust has been at this highly typical response: "We, the governors, have decided that you are idiots for questioning our friend Tony, and you shall all shut up now and obey." That is precisely the problem: "We are discussing you on a private mailing list" and "We note your puny concerns." That imperiousness is indicative of an actual practice on the part of the current Arbitration Committee and its attendant structures: to assume that it is a government and to secret itself, thereby isolating its members from accountability and contact with the rest of the project. I assure you, Filiocht was quite disgusted with that. This is not a rally against ArbCom: this is a rally against the on-high assumption of a power structure that is neither licensed by Misplaced Pages policy nor justifiable by the behavior or work ethic of those assuming it.
*You may trust me on this or not, as I was only Filiocht's friend, but he was very, very disturbed by some of the very same names entering the lists here. These individuals, and especially their assumptions of power and back channel obscuriantianism, have cost us many, many editors. Filiocht is simply another name to add to the roll call of "driven off by chumminess in the private channels." ] 16:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, Geogre, but I've reviewed Filiocht's contributions up to shortly before he left on his break. Your statements cannot be reconciled with what I found there; I see no evidence of dissatisfaction with Misplaced Pages in his user page or user talk page, and his stated reason (according to his own edits, made in February) for his extended break was illness. However, I see no point in continuing this discussion. You are putting words in the mouth of an absent Wikipedian, words of strong import for which you have not offered any validation. If Filiocht wishes his opinions to be known, he may do so. ] (]) 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::I also happen to know why Filiocht left, and I concur with Geogre completely. You see Kelly you really don't know very much about what is going on here at all. ] 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Nor did anyone bother telling her, or the Arbitration Committee, or Jimbo, until just now. I'm sorry Giano, but you've given us no reason to believe you, and even if you had, a decision made ''nine months ago'' in a different context is of dubious relevance. I still don't see why Geogre brought it up, but I think it would be a courtesy to drop it. ] ] 18:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


:I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Is Kelly Martin omniscient? How would she know information that apparently was not placed in any public location, then? If Filiocht chose to leave the project for reasons other than what he stated publicly its not unreasonable to think that others accepted the public reasons as the "real" reason. ] 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
===Silent Masses checking in===
Speaking as one of the (until now) silent masses, the ArbCom has my full respect. I haven't the time to thoroughly examine every case, but in every one I ''have'' examined, the ArbCom has issued a fair, equitable, and cogent ruling. Their rulings almost without fail strike a careful balance between conciliation and punishment, and between understanding and steadfastness. I have a great respect for those who devote so much of their time to dealing with the worst Misplaced Pages has to offer. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
As long as the silent are speaking, I think some folks are doing this issue real disfavor by being so dramatic. There are real issues here but the rhetoric is so over heated that they are obscured. Whenever I read ArbCom material they mostly come off as level headed people dealing with long running problems. They seem to get it mostly right. The real issue here is that some high profile admins have been curt, dismissive and rude long before anyone said anything about boils or ill-informed populace. I don't know how Kelly and Tony got to this point but if they weren't so mean spirited and rude sometimes we wouldn't be having this conversation. And this is coming from someone who at one time admired both of them for their ability to cut through to the heart of issues. Kelly seems to have access to high level private conversations that I for one don't trust her in at all (anymore). I'd like to see people dial back the heat a little. ] 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:100% correct. --] <small>]</small> 15:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:Yep. This happens all too frequently- there's a real dispute that probably needs resolved, but a few participants go over-the-top with it. Then, the whole issue is dismissed as silliness by people who see only the over-the-top parts, and don't recognize the true dispute. The issue of Tony Sidaway's allegedly disruptive behavior is important- if his critics are correct, he's causing huge damage to the project. Trying to get people to shut up about it instead of dealing with the problem hasn't worked in the past, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to try that again. ] ] 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with the above comments to some extent, and mostly with the need for the rhetoric to be toned down. Yes, there are some problems that are cropping up (and I agree that Kelly and Tony both have communication issues with non-admins, and sometimes with admins, that really need to be dealt with to avoid fueling drama). Do we need to rise up against the man? That's not quite the level we need to go to. Folks like Giano have points to be made, but calling for the guillotine stirs the pot too much. There needs to be some rational, less heated discussion to avoid people getting defensive, and thus shooting back. ] <small>]</small> 16:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I've come to believe that this is frequently intentional- When Tony is criticized, for example, he lashes out with insults and/or blocks in hopes of getting his critics to respond in kind, and appear unreasonable. That way, he or someone else can come in, delete the discussion, and brush off the entire episode as the silly whining of unreasonable editors. Perhaps skill in applying this technique is part of what has allowed this problem to linger for so long? ] ] 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I'd love to see you, or anyone else, try actually proving that. Some people just have a natural "talent" for unintentionally escalating situations. He does have communication issues, but accusing him of intentionally running a scheme like that is outright paranoia. --] 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::You're right in that we cannot know someone else's mind- all we can observe is their editing behavior. I'm certainly willing to admit that perhaps Tony's on-wiki persona is the result of astoundingly bad communcation/social skills, rather than intentionally being manipulative. In the end, it makes little difference which is true- the result is the same. ] ] 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Another silently massive person here. I've been silent and not spoken up out of fear, not from admins or arbcom but from the very folks calling for their heads. It's like a witchhunt out here, and frankly I didn't want to be lumped into the 'sycophantic minion' crowd or some such. Now that we're confronting it, though, I don't think Tony was out of line, I do think Giano was/is wandering into personal attack territory and that George is beginning to join him (amongst others) with their attacks on certain admins and arbcom, I think good admins are getting drawn into the same behavior here, and I think this whole section ought to be archived and dropped off the page. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that's been done by any single admin or group of admins that truly calls for an uprising against the authority here. And I'm stopping here, because ''I'm'' getting worked up now. --] 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
**Please inform me, on my page, if you prefer, of any time I near personal attacks. I have been angry, but anger is not an insult. My anger has pretty consistently been roused by abuse of process, not persons, but I will concur that I have nothing nice to say about James F, who came first to AN to announce that anyone in favor of a 24 hour block of Tony Sidaway was an idiot. I confined myself to my personal observations. I have, indeed, never once had a pleasant conversation with him. I have, indeed, never seen his comments on project space and felt they were moderating or moderate. That is my opinion, and I do not ''call'' for anyone to step down at this point, even if I cannot see any good being done by some. It would have been easy to ride the waves into attacking territory, but the closest I know of coming is in my reply to Doc, and that in reply to his accusation that I am putting on airs. I have pointedly avoided replying to Kelly's accusation that I am becoming a diva, as I regard her allegation as being pretty hard to sustain. However, I think it's pretty important that this '''not''' be dropped off the page. ] 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


:How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I think there are issues with arbcom, such as the process taking too long and some of the recent emergency desysoppings have been questionable imho. However I don't see any evidence that the people on arbcom aren't fair-minded hard-working Wikipedians. Also, we ''did'' elect them and will have an opportunity to speak again on this issue soon. Perhaps, if there's nothing wrong with the ''arbitrators'', there might be a few improvements necessary in the ''system''. Indeed, it would be very helpful now if we ''could'' stop talking about personalities and focussed on procedures. --] 16:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:While I'm not sure regarding the anger toward ArbCom (especially since the most glaring personality issues have not been brought before the body (not that it's stopped them from action before)), I'm not sure I can agree with your idea of it being helpful to move from personalities to procedures. The procedures are largely okay, when done properly. The problem is the personalities who either a) abuse said procedures, or b) consider them above said procedures, either consciously or unconsciously. --] <small>]</small> 16:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== Andra Febrian report ==
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars <br/>
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
I request that the user is warned.
]
:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
Another mass of silence speaking here :-). While the ArbCom system can always be improved--like everything at Misplaced Pages, it is a work in process--I don't think drastic change is needed and I generally support the current system. IMHO, this whole episode appears to be another of the endless dramas that pop up here all the time. Editors and admins act like the world will end over every personal disputes and use these disputes to try and push through needed "reforms." Sometimes these reforms work well, sometimes they don't. Do be aware, though, that only a small percentage of the 1000 plus admins here have been involved in this debate/arguement. However, once those involved in this debate use this as a pretense to push through reform of ArbCom or any other Misplaced Pages policies they will discover these "silent masses." While the silent masses don't take part in every personal drama on Misplaced Pages, we do stand up and take notice if ill-considered reforms are attempted. As a result, I'd suggest any reformers seek out admins and editors who have not been involved in this debate and seek their opinions on possible reforms. Best, --] 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of ] at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)|Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions}}. ] (]/]) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Request to archive ===
This isn't going anywhere. We've devolved to a meditation on the nature of power on Misplaced Pages. I think that's a sure a sign as any that no actual constructive action is going to occur. If dispute resolution is needed, there's ] or ]. If arbitrators need to be replaced, you can email Jimbo or wait until the December elections. I believe there are three seats open, including the one I vacated. If you intend to seize power, you'll need a rogue steward to make it effective. If you want to develop proposals for devolving Arbcom's authority over desysopings (an authority expressly given to it by the community, please see Stevertigo's last RfA), then Geogre, Dmcdevit, and I have each, independently, developed proposals that would do that. Otherwise, I think it's time to step back and wonder how things got this far, and all pledge to try and be polite to one another. For this to be effective, admins have to stop threatening to block people, and non-admins have to stop claiming that if they speak up admins will block them. Neither one represents helpful or respectful behavior. ] ] 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:I suggest archiving and agreeing to a voluntary 72 hour period of silence on these topics. No comments by any user on this topic on any policy page. Give everyone a chance to collect their wits and come back with more collaborative goals and methods for resolving these issues. ] 18:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::If the arbcom is really considering Tony's case, I urge them to actually open a case on it. If people had a ''right'' place to present evidence (and hopefully not just more general debate) maybe we'd see less of it in questionable-relevant places. ] ] 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::: Object, people need to voice out their opinions and be aware of what's going on. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


== ] == == Cannot draftify page ==


I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Apparently on Sept 19, ] to his page here. Needless to say, they have done so, and I can no longer tell what on the page is real and what isn't. If someone would like to sort it out, delete the crap, protect it, etc., such actions might be in order. --] 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
: Reverted to the version before the anon edit on 19 September, protected. If anyone wants to find a better version in the history it can be changed to ]. <b>]</b> 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::I've been checking the entire edit history since then (it probably ought to be BJAODNd; some of it's quite amusing, especially seeing how after a bit the erroneous statements get further vandalised); it seems there was an image ] uploaded for the page that should probably be deleted. What would be the ] considerations of BJAODNing ? --] 17:18, 20 September 2006 (]]])

Latest revision as of 01:26, 4 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 11 0 11
    TfD 0 0 4 0 4
    MfD 0 0 1 0 1
    FfD 0 1 11 0 12
    RfD 0 0 28 0 28
    AfD 0 0 13 0 13


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

    The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:

    I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.

    Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.

    However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.

    Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

      I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.

      That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club., and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      See . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think saying that I will never use multiple accounts anymore and that he wants to make constructive content would indicate that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727  18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block.

    See User talk:82james82. This user created an undoubtedly spammy page, and deleting it was justifiable. However, they were also issued an indef hard block tagged as {{uw-spamublock}} by Jimfbleak. There is no username violation, therefore this is a bad block. While I understand asking some questions, trying to educate a user as to why their deleted content was not appropriate, I don't understand why multiple admins, specifically Significa liberdade and 331dot did not simply undo the obviously bad block.

    The username has no obvious or even implied connection to the subject the user was writing about, therefore there was no blatant violation of the username policy, so the block was invalid. Whether the blocking admin chose the wrong setting by accident or on purpose, it was a manifestly incorrect block. I am not at all comfortable with multiple admins seeing this and letting them remain blocked while they wait for the blocking admin to come by and explain an obviously incorrect action.

    Just to be clear, I've already undone the block, this is more about admins holding each other accountable and being willing to reverse obviously wrong decisions where a user is blocked without justification. El Beeblerino 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    You have unilaterally undone the block. You could have waited for Jimfbleak to consent to the unblock. A block for advertising or promotion would have been legitimate. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    The block reasoning was manifestly invalid, and we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page. El Beeblerino 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi there! As was mentioned below, I am a fairly new administrator (September) and am still learning the ropes. I often try to be kind and see the best in editors when they've been blocked. In the month or so I've been helping out with unblocks, I haven't seen your name around. If you'd like to help, we'd love to have you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, I actually just changed my name and my sig, but also I've been more active at AFD, and on the other end of the blocking process at UAA. I do think it is a shame that so few admins work unblock requests, when it is only a few people, their opinions become de facto policy, which isn't good. I do know you are a fairly new admin, as I was one of the first dozen supporters at your RFA, under my then-username Just Step Sideways. I haven't changed my mind about that, but I don't like what I see here.
    What concerns me is that you don't seem to have questioned the username violation aspect of this block at all. You could see the deleted page, and could see that it had no connection to the username, and that the name is clearly a common first name with some numbers around it. Being able to see and correct obvious administrative errors is part of the job, in particular when reviewing unblock requests from brand-new users. El Beeblerino 03:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Beeblebrox, let's say she had, and she reversed the block instead of asking about the connection to the company. When that editor then recreates their spam page and is indeffed as an advertising-only account, and an irritated admin swings by her talk page to chew her out, are you going to stick up for her? -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for asking. Yes I would. However, you've misrepresented what happened. Again I will assume it is an simple mistake, but asking about the connection to the company is not what she did, she ignored that aspect entirely. It was 331dot who finally raised a question about it. El Beeblerino 04:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    What? Hello there! Can you tell me why you were interested in creating the Tripleye article? Do you have any connections with Tripleye? How is this not asking about the connection to the company? -- asilvering (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ok, My bad, I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about asking how the username relates to the company, which as far as anyone can tell it does not. El Beeblerino 06:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    No indeed. What I'm saying is that, if Significa liberdade had unblocked without first determining whether the editor had a COI and educating them on what that would mean for their editing on Misplaced Pages, chances are very high that the editor would return to the same behaviour - creating AI-scented promotional articles. If that happened, someone would again CSD them, and I expect they would be blocked again (this time with more accurate rationale). Maybe after a few more warnings, maybe not. Probably some flak for SL, either as a direct "wtf are you doing, that editor had an obvious COI" talk page message, or a passive-aggressive swipe at her in an edit summary or block rationale or something. This would be a worse outcome in every way than taking the time to check in with the blocking admin and figure out whether the editor has a COI or not before unblocking. -- asilvering (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ah I'd no idea you'd changed your name. Secretlondon (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    And changed the signature in a way which doesn't match the name, while appearing somewhat less serious. To each their own. BusterD (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    So, it wasn't even a posted article, but just a sandbox? Why couldn't the editor have had it pointed out to them that there needed to be improvements to fix the issues? I also don't agree with the whole "the admin who did a thing had to show up and agree or comment before you can do anything" nonsense. This entire thing seems overbearing, bitey and just poor admin conduct altogether. Silverseren 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Silver seren, that "has to comment before you can do anything" bit is policy: WP:RAAA and WP:Blocking policy#Unblocking. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The problem with said policy being the text are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators, as we can see from the above case and in many other cases (GreenLipstickLesbian has an example list below). There really is not a reason to presume that admins carefully consider their actions, personally. Particularly when that consideration is not showcased from an action in the first place. Silverseren 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I left a note explaining our rules for new articles about companies. That’s usually a good first step when a new editor writes a promotional article.
    I can no longer see deleted contributions but all I see mentioned on 82James82’s talk page is a deleted sandbox. My understanding is that we are more tolerant of subpar material in sandboxes than article space. —A. B. 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    That is my understanding as well. It wasn't submitted to AFC or anything, just a sandbox, and if it had been submitted at AFC they would've rejected it, not blocked the user. This was the users's first edit, and they got an instant no-warning indef hard block, and when they appealed they got an interrogation session instead of a reversal of the unjustified block. El Beeblerino 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    The ideal admin, in my mind, considers the protection of new editors to be one of their highest duties. They should actively look for justifications to prevent or undo blocks. An admin who leans toward blocking without warning, or leans toward refusing unblocks when the editor expresses good faith, is more dangerous than a thousand vandals. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Good deletion by JFB, bad block by JFB, and good unblock by JSS Beeb. But after the unblock, there no attempt at all to discuss this with JFB, SL, or 331 before coming here. Couldn't we try that first? Shouldn't we? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think we need to have more public discussions about the community's expectation with regard to the treatment of new users. I know you have concerns that the intent of such discussions is to escalate matters, but my intent is the opposite. The two recent recalls happened because the admin corps did not effectively hold colleagues accountable. If we establish a public consensus here that clarifies that that is something we do want from admins, that should decrease the chances of further ugly recall proceedings. El Beeblerino 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    My user talk is hardly not public. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agree with Floquenbeam - spam sandbox should have been deleted, the user should not have been blocked. GiantSnowman 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    (non-admin nosy parker comment) Significa Liberdade is one of our newest admins, so I think it's completely understandable that she would be nervous about going against two long-standing administrators. I think, @Beeblebrox, discussing this with her first would have been a good idea.
    331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined. They do demonstrate a pattern of finding reasons not to overturn suboptimal blocks, and that's a pattern you should maybe think about changing. I know you made each of these declines in good faith, and you accepted that they other administrators had made them in good faith. And I didn't go hunting for these- these were already on my radar for different reasons, and I made a note of them. Sorry for the dates being all out of place.
    • 2023-11-03 This user was indeffed for "disruptive editing", because on their twentieth edit they added "Category:Southeast Europe" to a plant that grew in south east Europe. (But was their twentieth edit and they'd never been told about redlinked categories before- just welcomed with a 4im vandalism warning for adding Category:American Surnames to an American surname article. No, I'm not kidding). In their unblock request, they said I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.. 331dot declined the request, saying Once you have gained a better understanding of policies, and have an edit you wish to make, please request unblock at that time.
    • 2024-06-01 This sock block was overturned by @JBW (with the rationale This block is clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts), but 331dot had declined the initial unblock request using the justification You used one account to comment on the talk page of the other, this makes it seem like you are multiple peopleI see no grounds here at this time to remove the block. (For clarification, the user never hid the fact they used two accounts. I don't see any WP:BADSOCK, neither did JBW, so I don't know how 331dot did).
    • 2022-10-15 This user was no-warning indeffed as NOTHERE due to their edits to the common.js/monobook.css page, and because the blocking admin seemingly did not notice the fact that the account also made several minor grammatical corrections to mainspace articles, had fixed formatting errors, and added cleanup tags. 331dot declined their unblock, saying This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. (What vandalism or disruptive editing?)
    • 2023-11-12 This user was no-warning indeffed for making tables in a wikiproject. (No, I'm not kidding). A more experienced editor confirmed that they'd asked the other editor to assist in projectspace. 331dot declined to unblock them, saying It's not at all obvious to me that's why you are here.. No, I don't get all the Wikiproject people either, but the community consensus says that yes, those editors are HERE.
    TL;DR: I see no grounds here at this time to remove the block is not a good attitude towards unblocks. We want editors to come back, and learn from their mistakes. We don't demand perfection. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yikes! A. B. 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The decline reason for Pbnjb1, with Yamla enforcing said provision no less, seems shamelessly punitive. Only unblocking when they say they have an edit to make? Just wow.... ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 02:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    That block is pretty awful. Straight to final warning for vandalism, then to an indef. No vandalism whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I will also point out their unblock denial at User_talk:Big_Thumpus, where a new editor who makes what appear to be respectful inquiries is accused of WP:SEALIONING (frankly, I don't think they're POV pushing so much as just being polite, which we should encourage) and blocked for sockpuppetry with no further explanation of any sockpuppetry at all, and with a CU stating there is no evidence at all. That editor, by the way, still has not been unblocked, despite being willing to discuss concerns civilly with other editors and with administrators and neither has User:Ceboomer (the 4th example listed). EggRoll97 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    To be fair, there are only two options with that user - (a) they are a sock/troll/LTA, and (b) they are someone who is familiar with Misplaced Pages, perhaps editing as an IP, who made the spectacularly bad decision to create an account and head straight for ANI to vote for banning Fram (and you would have thought in that situation they would have known it would look suspicious). In that context, the CU data being negative may not be the positive thing it might look like, as if they are the former they probably would know how to avoid CU issues. Yes, we should AGF, but I can see why people didn't in that case. The other cases may be more problematic, though. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    How can you see why people didn't? There is no "obvious evidence to the contrary" unless I'm missing something, the evidence presented is entirely circumstantial and non-obvious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Horse Eye's Back You wouldn't be even slightly suspicious of a brand new editor that dived into an ANI block discussion with one of their first few edits? I would. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The guideline isn't slightly suspicious its obvious evidence. As a non-admin I would also have to temper any suspicion I had with being found liable for biting a newcomer, hence even when I'm almost entirely certain I still have to be open and respectful (and to just walk away when I can't actually prove anything). I do think that we tend to be pretty harsh with newcomers... If they're not good editors we ding them for being incompetent net negatives and if they're good we start calling them puppets. With all honesty I can say that I don't envy you admins though, the inherent conflict between being swift and severe with socks and AGF, BITE, etc is one of the great questions we face as a community. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, which is why I didn't block them (I saw the edit when it was made). Looking at their previous few edits - using @ in their first edit, spelling lead as "lede", diving straight into AMPOL, that is a judgment call someone had to make. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Black Kite hold up, surely spelling lead as "lede" is evidence that they aren't a long-time wikipedian? We spell it "lead". It's American journalists who spell it "lede". -- asilvering (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I see most editors refer to "lede" not "lead", which while I can't stand the terminology personally is well documented as a concept per WP:LEDE. It is therefore not indication of an editors' experience, ever. CNC (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The linked page says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." and seems to overall document that we use lead not lede. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    People using "lede" on Misplaced Pages is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I see plenty of long-standing editors use it, so I also don't take it as indicative of anything nefarious. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    @GhostOfDanGurney agreed, I hate it. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think there's probably a conversation about how unblocks are handled that is worth having, but I'm sure having trouble getting fired up about this unblock in particular. An editor makes a blatantly promotional LLM-generated page, which is deleted; once they're blocked, two admins politely ask about the editor's possible connection to the company. It looks to me like it was headed for an unblock. No one's been rude or made threats, including the editors who dropped templated notices earlier. This looks better to me than most interactions I see between newcomers writing promo and experienced editors. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin 
    == Tripleye ==
Tripleye is an integrated technology solution advancing the future of intelligent machines across a range of industries with cutting-edge autonomous systems and modules.
The company equips engineering teams with the tools needed to enable fully autonomous vehicles or specific autonomous functionalities. Its camera-based approach, rather than relying on LiDAR, delivers unmatched visual detail, scalability, affordability, and versatility.
By leveraging advanced computer vision and AI technologies, Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems tailored to their unique operational demands. The company’s patented technology, developed by an experienced team with a history of groundbreaking research and innovation, outperforms other solutions on the market.
Tripleye is headquartered in Berlin, Germany, with additional offices in Karlsruhe and New York City.
== History ==
Tripleye’s origins trace back to early work by Jens Schick and David Wegner as far back as 2013. Jens Schick, a pioneer in autonomous vehicle technology, built the first autonomous car at Daimler in 1994 as part of a groundbreaking project called ‘Prometheus.’ This was the first-ever autonomous vehicle, predating the 2004 DARPA challenge by a decade and marking Europe’s leading role in AV innovation.
After Daimler, Jens joined Bosch to establish its vision group from scratch and later launched Myestro Interactive, a research company focused on autonomous vehicle sensing technologies. In 2019, Jens met Francois Dubuisson, a seasoned entrepreneur with extensive experience in building startups. Recognising the transformative potential of Jens’ innovations, Francois joined forces with him to start a new venture, and Tripleye was born.
== Technology ==
Tripleye’s technology is built on a unique camera-based approach that offers unmatched visual detail, scalability, and cost efficiency compared to traditional LiDAR systems. By combining advanced computer vision and AI-driven analytics, Tripleye enables the development of fully autonomous systems and customised functionalities tailored to diverse industry needs.
With a robust foundation of patented innovations and decades of expertise, the company delivers hardware and software modules designed to outperform market competitors. This technology is ideal for industries requiring precise, adaptable, and scalable solutions.
== Impact ==
Tripleye has gained significant recognition and support for its contributions to autonomous systems and intelligent machines, including:
* Funding from the European Innovation Council, which champions pioneering deep tech solutions.
* Inclusion in the NVIDIA Inception Program, an exclusive accelerator for cutting-edge AI and data science startups.
These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.
== References ==
* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/deeptech)
* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/autonomous-vehicles-2024)
* (https://spielfelddigitalhub.medium.com/an-interview-with-tripleye-bd3b0f61080a)
    One thing worth all of us considering, when dealing with potential spammers, is that if someone is using ChatGPT, as James appears to have here, that makes it a lot harder to infer their motivation, for better and for worse. That is to say, someone could be a completely inept spammer using ChatGPT to masquerade as a moderately ept spammer, or could be a good-faith editor who's made the foolish decision to rely on ChatGPT and has inadvertently used a spammy tone as a result. In this case, the deletion was definitely within reason under G11, but it's a good illustration of why blocking on the first offense of spam is usually overkill, unless it's like blatant link-spamming ("for the best online slots click here" etc.).Jimfbleak, I'm wondering if you maybe have some script misconfigured, or if there's a misunderstanding on policy here, as pertains to username blocks? I noticed Special:Contributions/Onüç Kahraman yesterday too. That user did turn out to be socking, but your initial {{uw-softerblock}} didn't really make sense, as Onüç Kahraman is a film that came out in 1943, not something subject to any ongoing promotion. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Looks like they were using User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage, a script I also use. It is somewhat easy to select the wrong drop downs, or to use the default selections on autopilot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I was prepared to ask the blocking admin to unblock but I wanted the user to show that they knew their text was promotional. I didn't see a username issue, but I'm not perfect so I was asking Jimfbleak what it was, if anything. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      You've been working around username issues a long time, and doing a lot of good work. I think you have the necessary experience and judgement to see that there was not a blatant violation here. I really feel like we're falling down in our treatment of new users who aren't behaving maliciously but just don't understand what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. I assure you I'm not trying to have anyone burned at the stake here, I just think we need to address these issues and be more willing to undo obviously incorrect actions without waiting as long as it takes for the admin who made the error to explain themselves. El Beeblerino 23:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      I get it, but sometimes I like to make sure that I haven't missed something. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'll repeat something I said in User talk:Tamzin § Administrative culture:

      I think the root problem here is with WP:RAAA. It begins Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. I mean. Fucking seriously? Every fucking admin knows that's a lie, because we've all had times where we deleted a page or blocked a user within seconds of looking. Usually entirely justifiably, because some deletions and blocks are just that obvious, but there's no world where that's "consider carefully". And in other cases, the lack of careful consideration speaks for itself. If an admin blocks two users as sox because they didn't know about the meme both were referencing in their usernames (actual thing I've unblocked over), they obviously did not carefully consider that block.  ...

      So I think the solution, or at least a major necessary step toward a solution, in all this, is replacing that presumption of careful consideration with something else. I'm not entirely sure what. I'm honestly not sure if we need RAAA-shielding for routine admin actions. If another admin were to see some routine vandalblock of mine and think I was hasty, and wanted to just unblock, then more power to them, as long as they're the one who wears the responsibility for whatever comes next. RAAA is useful for, say, blocks of experienced users who might have an admin-friend in the wings, or keeping people from fucking with things they mightn't understand the full story behind, like sockblocks, copyvioblocks, and socking-based page protections. But it creates a latch effect on the simplest admin actions, I think often more than even the admin intends. I think the solution starts with fixing that.

      -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      I don't think the allowed actions in Misplaced Pages:RAAA are all that problematic, though I do agree with you about the presumptions in the preamble. You can reverse if the following are met:
      1. Good cause
      2. Careful thought
      3. If the admin is presently available: consultation. So shoot them a message, and if they don't respond within a reasonably short period of time, proceed anyway
      Those three steps are not very restrictive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      They might not be very restrictive in theory, but they are in practice. It's far easier to get desysopped for a bad unblock than for a bad block. In effect the rule becomes that you need to not just try to talk with the admin, but actually need their permission. That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy. Or to put it more simply: We can't all be Beeblebrox. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Thank god for Beeblebrox then... We can't have all the admins form a Blue wall of silence... Somebody has to be the "bad brick" for the larger society to function. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

      That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy.

      Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to having this become a policy. Of course, there should be some latitude for the blocking admin's discretion, but a block with no WP:ADMINACCT explanation should be able to be reverted by another admin. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      We've had a parallel to this idea in deletion policy (para 2 here) for like forever, and the world's stubbornly refused to end. I do worry somewhat about the effect it'd have with WP:UNBLOCKABLES. —Cryptic 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      As one of the relative newbies around here, I've kind of assumed that the RAAA thing with unblocks is a hangover from the Bad Old Days of wandering cowboy admins who needed rules like this to keep the wheel-warring in check. I don't tend to mind following this gentlemen's agreement, since I value the second look. But it's the admins who make the bad blocks that are also the least likely to be affable about you lifting them. Then we end up with the problem Tamzin's described. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • It's great to welcome new users and assume good faith, but Misplaced Pages will be neck-deep in spam if junk like the above is not handled firmly. If I had seen it, I would have ground my teeth and moved on because why should I get heaps from people who think there is value in "These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries." There is more and more of this stuff, and soon people will be able to ask an AI bot to author and post their fluff on Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      Literally nobody is arguing that the page was acceptable or that the deletion was incorrect. The issue is the subsequent block and making the user wait, blocked, until it was convenient for the blocking admin to respond. If you found yourself blocked for reasons that were manifestly incorrect, would you not expect and hope that reviewing admins would reverse it? El Beeblerino 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      If I had been the user who posted that advert as their first edit, I would know why I had been blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      You seem to be entirely missing the point that this was an indef hard block because of the supposed combination of promotional edits and a promotional username, when there is literally no issue of any kind with the user name. We can AGF that this was simply an misclick, but we shouldn't pretend there is a real issue with the name because of it. El Beeblerino 04:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I try to educate users as to why I have deleted their hard work with User:Deepfriedokra/g11 or User:Deepfriedokra/del. For the most part, I prefer to give them the opportunity to mend their ways in the context of User:Deepfriedokra#DFO's rule of thumb. Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out. It is important to try to facilitate that emergence, though sometimes a block is required to do so.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I want to second that Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out. (well, perhaps a slightly modified Inside every disruptive editor is potentially a constructive editor trying to get out.) One of the people brought on to talk about wikipedia in a recent NPR piece described a vandal to core editor conversion sparked in part by effective and positive engagement on their talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do think we, and I include myself here, have gotten too hardcore about blocking over one or two promo edits, in particular when they aren't even in article space. I'm working on some proposals to address this right now. El Beeblerino 04:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Something that reiterates "we tell new users that their sandbox is for screwing around, don't CSD them for screwing around in it" would be hugely welcome. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just spent a few minutes chasing my tail looking for anything that makes it clear where the line is, and all I came up with is that you can't have attack content, copyvios, or other types of "not acceptable anywhere, period type of content. I didn't see anything about promotional content in sandboxes. If I've missed it somehow, someone please let me know where it is. El Beeblerino 05:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    {{Db-spamuser}} covers userpages, which I guess personal sandboxes are a subset of, that's all I could find. El Beeblerino 05:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, there isn't anything clearly explaining where the line is, that's my point. I've seen quite a lot of "good faith" promo editing tagged for G11/U5 in sandboxes, editors blocked for having promo there, etc etc. I'll happily do the promo username+edits blocks or vaporize chatGPT nonsense, but deleting/blocking someone for sandbox edits when the template right in front of their eyes says it's for experimentation is really over-the-top bitey, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe it's time we warn these users that sandboxes are not a completely safe haven to test whatever they want, because as I see it, the user's sandbox template did not bring up the reasons why one edits in the sandbox might be deleted (whether from U5 or G11 or sth else). 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please think about the long-term consequences of a rule saying that anyone can post anything so long as it is in their user space, or marked as "sandbox" or whatever. Will we wait a year to see if an SPA refashions their spam into an FA, then (if not) add a delete request tag, then discuss the deletion request? That won't scale. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Are you ok? I honestly can't tell what point you are trying to make. El Beeblerino 06:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    It seems pretty clear to me: it's potentially a gate to letting spam "articles" stick around 'because they're in sandboxes'. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    If a sandbox is clearly G11, and IMHO we've become overly inclusive of any COI editing as G11, then it should be deleted. But the creator needs to be educated as to why. And yes, I share the concern about people using Misplaced Pages for promotion, and I know some would leap at any loophole. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Beeblebrox: Ah, yes. The Ghost of Wheel-Wars Past. Before my time really, but you can still hear the chains rattle after nearly two decades. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    As ScottishFinnishRadish correctly surmised, I use Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage script, and I'm aware that it's easy to select the wrong drop down, so I always check. However, it appears that in this case I still managed to fat finger an obviously incorrect rationale, mea culpa, I can only apologise for that. I don't think that the G11 was incorrect, there's no policy that exempts spamming in userspace. I intended to block the account as being likely an UPE, given that their first edit was a full, highly promotional page about a company, and then left it for uninvolved admins to review the block. If asked, I always accept the reviewing admin's decision unless, rarely, they have missed something like socking or previous malpractice. I apologise again for the error I made, although I can't help thinking it could have been sorted out on my talk page rather than through ANI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I frankly agree. This didn't need to be brought here. He made a mistake- apparently I made a mistake by asking him to confirm that he made a mistake(even though clicking unblock bring up a clear message "Unless you imposed the block, you may not unblock any accounts you control (including bots) without permission from the blocking administrator, even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error") okay. We'll do better next time. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I realize that's for "accounts you control" but clearly there's some intention here that we need to consult with the blocking admin in general. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Policy does state "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." So does this mean I shouldn't ask to confirm that the blocking admin made a mistake? We also prohibit wheel-warring. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Theres a lot to unpack here. First, what you quote is about admins unblocking themselves, nothing related to this situation. It is not a statement on asking the blocking admin. Then you quote policy stating specifically in cases or error just unblock and that it is polite to ask, not required. Seems pretty straightforward. PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I was in error with the first part. But I do value being polite and making sure I don't make a mistake. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Polite to the admin, even if clearly in the wrong, is a disservice to the user unfairly blocked. That kind of gets to the whole point of this tread. PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    If we're saying that a temporary disservice to doublecheck my thinking and have a little civility is bad, okay, but that puts me at risk of being accused of wheel warring/unblocking people who shouldn't be. So I should err on that side? (a serious question) 331dot (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @331dot: as it's the second time you've expressed concern re. wheel-warring; to clarify, unblocking someone doesn't qualify. If another admin came along and reblocked them, that would be WW. Good luck with all this, too. SerialNumber54129 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    And I reiterate it would have been better to approach me with a nice "hey, I think you would have been okay unblocking here" rather than coming here. My talk page is very public. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • On a related note, I think we need to sit down with WP:PRECOCIOUS and WP:CIR and decide which one (1) of them we will be hard-assed blockhawks about. It is absurdly, unbelievably dumb to do so for both -- noobs trying to do volunteer work seem to currently have the choice between being instantly screamed at for not knowing how markup works and being instantly screamed at for being sockpuppets. jp×g🗯️ 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      hear ye, hear ye, jpxg speaks the truth!... Buffs (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • "we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page" - We do too, if the one sandbox page is awful enough. I would've blocked too. I like to think I never would've misclicked the wrong rationale while blocking, but we're not all dextrous, typo-immune college students. That calls for a correction in the rationale (probably on the talk page rather than unblocking and reblocking), not a reversal. Same as seeing someone make a typo in mainspace calls for fixing the typo, not a rollback of the entire edit.There's a couple comments above to the effect that this person might have become a productive Wikipedian if only we hadn't blocked them after deleting their ad. I say you're full of it. People who start out as vandals may, very rarely, eventually become productive Wikipedians - there's been a handful of admitted examples of people "hacking Misplaced Pages for the lulz" in middle school and making amends five or ten years later, and no doubt there's been many more silent reincarnations. But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. —Cryptic 11:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I vandalized Misplaced Pages with my European history class in high school, and I've got my entire editing career since. I'd say you might want to rethink your attitude. It costs very little for established users to offer grace to newbies, because without a doubt those established users are only still on Misplaced Pages because some grace was offered to them when they were new. The attitude displayed by some in this thread suggests that you should have been treated with suspicion and blocked immediately on your first edits, because who just knows wiki syntax and uses edit summaries immediately? Very suspicious.
      "They would never have become a productive Wikipedian" is an easy position to take when you never offer the possibility to become one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      There's a difference between vandalizing Misplaced Pages for S & Gs as a teenager(for which I've given several new chances at editing for such people) and knowingly posting marketing material(the main point Cryptic refers to). 331dot (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      (edit conflict)As I said, there is a world of difference between casual vandalism and commercial promotion. The one is reformable, and has been shown to be reformable. The other is not. High school students don't write credible marketing brochures in history class. —Cryptic 12:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      People don't understand our notability criteria, let alone our rules about promotional content. Blocking someone for not understanding arcane rules you haven't explained is not functionally any different than any other vandalism. And you can respond to my comment, 331dot, but not to GreenLipstickLesbian's collections of your bad judgement? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      If people are looking for the perfect admin that's not me. I make mistakes and try to learn from them. I'm not sure what should say beyond that. If GLL has concerns about me I wish they would bring them to me directly. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I fail to see how "331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined" is not bringing concerns to you directly, in a discussion you have been notified of. Was it the lack of ping? The assumption is your involvement in this thread should be enough, and being repeatedly pinged would could be over-pinging. CNC (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      CommunityNotesContributor By "directly" I mean to my user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      CommunityNotesContributor: I cannot speak for 331dot, but I would have preferred if Beeblerox had first brought this concern to me on my talk page rather than bringing it directly to ANI. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      @331dot @Significa liberdade. Respectfully, this doesn't concern only the two of you, and the idea of three parallel discussions occurring on different talk pages doesn't lead to structured discussion, hence it's centralized here. This discussion also goes beyond the conduct of certain admins, and instead is intended to be a broader discussion over admin conduct etc, so it appears correctly located to me. I understand the concept of approaching admins directly on talk pages etc, but this isn't a case of a single issue with a single admin. CNC (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Including myself, there are four admins involved here. Seems like a central discussion is appropriate to me to air this out. Not to nitpick, but this is AN, not ANI. There is a difference. El Beeblerino 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      And presumably you have sufficient evidence to back up that sweeping assertion? The idea that any class of editor is entirely and utterly not reformable strikes me as wrong (if not a top level AGF violation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      If you can find a commercial promoter who has, I would be genuinely very interested to see it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor... I don't actually know of many reformed editors overall but I have seen racists reform their views and become valuable editors where they were once Jordan Peterson style knuckle draggers. I don't however see why someone who first learns to edit wikipedia inappropriately for work would be incapable of becoming a productive wikipedia editor after leaving that job for one which doesn't involve wikipedia. I would imagine however that such an editor would WP:CLEANSTART, rendering my point somewhat moot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor me too, that's why I'd be very interested to see evidence of a commercial promoter who has become a good general contributor. We've got plenty of people who will admit to having been teenage vandals, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who edited for their job and then became a regular editor. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Agree with this overall assessment, even if it is hard to swallow: if racists can change editing behaviour, then so can anyone. I think clean start would only usually apply if blocked. If the user remains able to edit, there wouldn't be much of a reason to create a new account. You underestimate the point you made. CNC (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. I present JohnCWiesenthal as a counterexample. Despite that, I agree with the general sentiment being expressed there. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I cannot see any similarity between that editor's contributions and the user being discussed here. I just looked at some of their first edits, and the first edits at IntelliStar which was mentioned in the block reason. There was no comparison with the current case. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I see a difference between a page that is "promotional" and a page that is "advertising". The content here was promotional in tone; Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems is sufficient example of that. But it was not advertising. There was no list of products for sale, no prices, no "call this phone number to order". For advertising of that nature, blocking after a single creation in a sandbox seems reasonable. In this case, it seems excessive; although 82james82 clearly needs guidance for how to proceed in the project. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      RFC on some of the issues raised here is now live at Misplaced Pages:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC. El Beeblerino 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking

    • Having read this discussion, I wanted to provide an example of how issues such as those raised can also lead to deterring users from reporting others. Apologies for the length of comment, but the point is predominantly in the context here. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. This is my personal feeling/opinion based on recently reporting a user for the first time, in a situation where there is a very high possibility that the editor becomes an (exclusively) constructive contributor, rather than regularly disruptive. The specifics of the example isn't the point, only that I almost certainly would have reported earlier if not seriously concerned that the user would fail to "prove" they were worthy for an unblock. Fortunately I had a very competent and understanding admin deal with the case and there wasn't even the pedanticism of an official unblock request (as is expected, or even required?) which was refreshing, but rather a simple back and fourth discussion, and the bar for the unblock was effectively set incredibly low, exactly as I'd hoped. For me this was a huge relief, as I'm a strong believer that even if only 1-10% of editors unblocked go on to become constructive contributors, then this is a huge number of potential useful editors, many of whom are here today no doubt. I'd be a lot more inclined to report serious issues rather than ignore if it were more common or possible for admins to override rejections of unblocks, or otherwise set lower bars for unblocks when applicable (that's subjective, I know). Maybe I've misinterpreted the examples above and my own, but I do wonder how many other users feel similar, those who shy away from noticeboards when possible, and don't want to be responsible for a user being indeffed due to failure to research and understand every policy and guideline that's ever existed in order to satisfy a request. I'm also aware of the cost/benefit scenario in the opposite direction, that of users being unblocked too easily leading to more serious issues down the line, but I do also think the balance could be better achieved overall. CNC (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      We get loads of people adding the same copy they use for user pages on LinkedIn, Facebook etc. That's all they are here for. When they ask to be unblocked we ask them what they want to edit about, and it's still their employer. Secretlondon (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? CNC (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Well I intended it as a response to you. I accept I skimmed your comment as it was long. I was trying to explain that most spam blocks are clear cut. I wouldn't have blocked the one this thread was about, and I regularly reject requests to block people. Secretlondon (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Apologies for the cryptic example then, has nothing to do with spam blocking. My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. CNC (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I do really worry about this, partly for the reasons you describe and partly because I think it sets people up to either become unblockable or the receiver of a really rough reality check once they stop flying under the radar. (Currently dealing with an unblock request from someone who fell into the latter category, then ruined their chances of a quick return by socking - not an ideal trajectory.) I know this doesn't really address the broader cultural issues, but when you're dealing with someone like that, it's hugely helpful if you can get them to understand what they did wrong that led to the block. The more of that that happens, the more likely their appeal is to be accepted. Part of the work of making unblocks a kinder process can be done (and done more effectively, imo) by non-admins. If you do this and get yelled at by some other admin, feel free to blame/call on me. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Also, if you do this kind of thing, you're inevitably going to run into someone who is completely unhelpable at the present time. This can be really hard to disentangle yourself from, emotionally and from a sunk-costs kind of perspective. I think it's harder for admins actually, since admins are bound by WP:ADMINACCT and a non-admin is free to give up so long as they maintain basic civility while they do so. Forewarned is forearmed, but also, if you get trapped in a hopeless situation like that and need someone to be the Mean One who bails you out, I'm happy to do that too. -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      In this specific case, the user was blocked for a combination of spamming and a username violation, which was an obvious error. They were still blocked for it for three days after explicitly asking in an unblock requests what was wrong with their name. That's miles away from the scenario you are describing. El Beeblerino 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Or, better, My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. -- asilvering (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Beeblebrox probably referencing directly what I'm talking about in future would help, apologies for any confusion here. My long-winded comment was effectively in support of the concerns you raised, even if somewhat indirectly or more broadly, and asilvering was merely providing some alternative context that is also relevant, even if not necessarily to the broader discussion in question. The quotes above should cover this, as well as potentially "The specifics of the example isn't the point,...". CNC (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Thanks, I'll bare it in mind and appreciate the context you provided. The example of a blocked user turning sock is all too common I imagine, and 100% agree can be more likely avoided with more non-admin warnings (if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here). With my example above, the user was warned numerous times by non-admins and presumably thought it was "all talk" rather than reality (ie, being warned about being blocked, but never actually being blocked). This is also what happens when you spend a year warning a user and not taking the situation further based on the concerns raised above. Anyway, I digress as per often. I'm far from shy from sending warning templates to users (in fact I do so religiously, because usually it works). So the editors' ability to be unblocked was handed to them on a plate already, as intended, with the admin simply reminding them of the plate they had been given previously. Without these warnings, they quite possibly would have been left in the dark to research every policy and guideline that's ever existed to in order to determine whether that was the reason for a block, which is thoroughly unrealistic. At least, this can be the case, even if not so often I realise. Even knowing there is an admin or two I could ping into a discussion, that understand my POV, would be a huge benefit in future. Without intending to sound rude to admins here, going to a noticeboard is an awful lottery system that I try and avoid at all costs unless completely desperate. And hopefully, this context can be understood within the discussion in question, that of never wanting potentially useful editors permanently blocked unnecessarily. Which I've noticed can be as simple as failure to format an unblock request 🤮 CNC (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here - in this case I brought up the socking simply to illustrate how someone who gets blocked can end up blocked for a long time, much longer than should have been necessary. That's always going to be a possibility if you report someone, and it's not your fault. Sometimes people make bad choices, doesn't matter what you do. -- asilvering (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Agreed, no one is at fault when reporting editors based on the outcome, ever, but I see it as being partly responsible none the less (as the instigator of the outcome). No one is immune to the outcomes that they have caused fundamentally, even if they are not to blame. Ie if I become partly responsible for an editor being blocked for too long, it's a solid good reason not to report users in future, based on basic WP:RESPONSIBILITY WP:MORALITY. Even if I'm not implementing a bad admin action, I would remain the cause of such an action per cause and effect and remaining WP:CONSCIOUS. CNC (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'll start by saying that, absent some sort of specific statement about why that particular block reason was selected, I too am a bit baffled for choosing that reason. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time getting too excited about the indef block of an account that, by their own admission, was intending to write promotional articles about companies that don't come close to meeting our notability criteria, while using Misplaced Pages as a springboard to return to their career path. What I am seeing here is more a reason to *change the block reason* rather than a reason to unblock. Any admin can reblock with a more correct block message without getting into the whole "well, you need permission from the original blocking admin" stuff, which isn't actually material when any admin could have reblocked with a different block message. Risker (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Looking through 331dot declining unblocks reveals quite a few instances where either 331dot or the blocking admin takes an extremely newbie-unfriendly approach:

    • User talk:Meruba ny has now been unblocked by Philknight, but the approach by 331dot was not very helpful or newbie-friendly
    • User talk:DustinBrett: no warnings, immediate indef block by User:Widr for a misguided edit (not vandalism, just auto-promo): no idea why a warning wasn't tried first
    • User talk:Djmartindus, no warning, immediate indef block by User:rsjaffe, reasonable unblock request, denied by 331dot. This is the apparently unforgiveable, no warnings needed edit.
    • User talk:PaulSem, I can understand their frustration, I don't see the "blatant spam" they were posting, they were posting references with relevant information, but these included commercial websites as well as neutral ones. I don't see any company they tried to promote, no spam text, ... just a helpful editor who hasn't yet given up on editing here despite a way too harsh block by User:HJ Mitchell and an unhelpful unblock decline by 331dot
    • User talk:Cryo Cavalry incorrect sock block, unblocked thanks to PhilKnight, but previous interactions with 331dot, including a declined unblock, were again rather unhelpful, just blindly believing that the block has to be correct

    These are all from this month, from spotchecking some of their declined unblocks (a number of other declines were perfectly allright). Fram (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    I blocked based on Misplaced Pages:SPAMNAME combined with promotional edit. Name represents a website that functions to generate income and the user posted a link to the site. Is that kind of block incorrect? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Name of website (blog) is name of actual person, DJ Martin Dus. Link they posted was informative and relevant. The reaction to this is not some gentle steering towards "perhaps better a new username" (dubious if that was even necessary) and "please don't post links to your own blog", but an immediate indef block, and a declined unblock with a request for basically a complete plan for their future editing career. Apparently their error was much more heinous than someone posting blatant vandalism, who gets 3 or 4 chances before being blocked, and first gets clear warnings that it will happen. Fram (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Rsjaffe it was well within the bounds of policy and reason but the name could be a stage name whuch changes the equation slightly. Ask 100 different admins, you'll get 100 different answers.
    I stand by my block of PaulSem based on the information I had at the time but my threshold for undoing my own block is essentially a coherent appeal or promise not to repeat the problem action so I've unblocked now I've seen that they appealed. That's not a criticism of 331dot because my standard for reversing another admin's action is much higher. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the unblock, but I really don't see why that editor didn't just warrant some guidance, at worst warnings, for some of the links they included. I may well have missed it, but their latest edit added a good source, which you reverted, after which you blocked. Fram (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the edit wasn't promotional enough for you to even revert, it probably wasn't blatant enough to call for a block. Or to turn it around, this is like when I see another admin tag all of a user's creations as spam, or vandalism, or even attack pages instead of deleting them themselves; and after I delete the pages and go to deal with the user, I find that the same admin had already blocked. How can you be confident enough to indef a user while still being unsure enough about their content - the reason you blocked them - that you need confirmation from another admin? —Cryptic 16:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The lack of reversion was an error on my part. However, I do acknowledge that I had only seen the name as the name of a website, and not also as a stage name. I have been slow on reversing the block after seeing the objection raised here, because one of the lessons I learned from a previous block that I posted on this page requesting review, showed that acting too quickly on an objection can create havoc, when the objection — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Itself becomes controversial. (I am on flaky connection right now, sorry for the broken up message). Will unblock, revert edit, and discuss either user. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cryptic, I see things somewhat differently, and I am among the administrators who often block for promotional username/promotional editing and then tag the content, usually G11, for review by another administrator, under the principle that two heads are better than one. In my mind, it is a check on myself to help prevent me from becoming too stringent and if another administrator questions my tag or my block, that helps me adhere to community norms. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    So, what, you see a promotional page being made, figure it's bad enough to block the creator, but aren't sure it's worth deleting? What do you do if the deletion's declined? Leave the user blocked, even though what they wrote was acceptable? Unblock? How do you rationalize either of those outcomes as ok? —Cryptic 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cryptic, the answer is clear to me but I will spell it out for you. If another administator disagrees with my assessment that the content in question should be deleted (or that the editor should have been blocked), then that administator and I would have a conversation. That could lead to content being draftified instead of being deleted. It could lead to a hard block being converted to a soft block. It could result in me concluding that I misunderstood and unblocking with an apology. It would not result in me ignoring the situation and leaving a contradictory outcome unresolved. As I said, I believe that two heads are better than one and I do not recall any other admimstrator chastising me with, "you should have deleted that spam yourself!". Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Cullen328: Why not tag the page for deletion, then warn the user? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Significa liberdade, because I am an administator and overtly promotional usernames are not permitted and call for a block. And an account with an overtly promotional username combined with creation of overtly promotional content calls for a hard block. I do not engage in friendly negotiations with spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cullen328: Apologies, on a re-read I realized you mentioned username+promo. I thought you were just talking about a new editor creating promotional pages. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    And Cullen is of course correct by our current policies and practices. That's where I think the problem lies, not with individual admins but with the guidance provided to them, which I have been following for years myself. I do think spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia is going a bit far in many cases and we need to try warning and education as a tool of first resort, as we do with vandals, instead of jumping straight to a block. I am very willing to delete spam, but I have come to believe that the no-warning blocking is not really productive or fair. El Beeblerino 03:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The best solution might be the simplest one: we need some new blood dealing with blocks and unblocks. Either admins who work in other areas should pay some attention to this, or new admins with a newbie-advocate philosophy need to be given the tools to work on block appeals. ...any volunteers? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not an admin myself, but I'm always happy to help give advice to users making block appeals, and to make sure they're on the right track! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Significa liberdade is one of those newbie-advocate types who has taken up this work recently, and I've been on it as well. It needs as much new blood as it can get. It's also really helpful for non-admins who know their way around to help out the ones who have clearly misunderstood something (eg, someone blocked for copyright, a promo editor who needs to agree to abide by paid disclosure, etc). -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Happy to help. A. B. 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Help is surely needed, as the usual suspects just continue in the same vein, e.g. with User talk:NKabs03. That editor needed warnings and guidance, not an indef block and and a declined unblock. No idea why this was reverted, and while their addition was a promo link, it's hard to find fault with the reasoning from their edit summary. 5 Edits of which 2 were good and 3 promolinks but relevant and understandable = no warnings and indef block? Gee, I wonder why we have such a hard time finding new editors. Fram (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Are there deleted edits or something else I can't see here, there's nothing further in the filter log? User:Tanishksingh039 makes two edits on the 11th, gets warned (okay), makes no further edits, and gets blocked indef a full week later on the 18th by User:HJ Mitchell. Why??? Fram (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    There are no deleted contributions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically someone making a living by backlinking a website for a clientand not just someone who is ignorant of Misplaced Pages policy. How are they supposed to learn if the first interaction they have with another Wikipedian is "you are already blocked, because you are a malicious spammer." and their second interaction is "you haven't immediately fully comprehended Misplaced Pages's policy on promotional edits so NOPE." I'm surprised the even made a second appeal. El Beeblerino 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • We need to recognize that we're in an era in which WP:ROPE doesn't really work for Spam/UPE, even though it continues to apply for other forms of disruption. The cost in editor time of monitoring the contributions of a suspected paid editor after an unblock or warning are very high, because often the edits are benign on the face of it: whereas I have no qualms about warning an editor at AIV, because I know they'll be back if they vandalize again. I haven't looked into the specifics of the cases here, and am not intending to justify them, but we need to recognize that if we want to make it easier to unblock editors suspected of UPE, or to encourage admins to warn for a first offence, a starting point might be making it easier to monitor the contributions of these editors. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      An alternative could be ROPE + topic ban? As in, we give them a second chance, but if they go back to editing about the company/etc. they were promoting (or something broadly related to it), even if the edits themselves are innocuous, reblock. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      True, I was only considering cases where the UPE was obvious (example: writing about a company in marketing jargon) rather than cases based on private evidence. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      It also doesn't change the difficulty of monitoring. It still means someone who knows of the concerns needs to check every subsequent edit manually for issues: new editors often don't understand a TBAN, and a dedicated spammer is unlikely to want to follow the rules in the first place. I'm just spit-balling here, but wondering if an admin were able to add a flag to an editor's subsequent edits that would tell patrollers what the concern was. That feels somewhat big-brother-esque, but perhaps we'd be more willing to give rope in that case? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I know a generic "watchlist this user's edits" isn't a good idea, but enabling it specifically for users you unblocked could definitely be helpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Chaotic Enby, I think that's exactly the sort of thing @Vanamonde93 is saying is too much work when it comes to dedicated spammers. I keep an eye on the people I've rope-unblocked, but I couldn't do that at the rate that HJM does spam blocks, for example. Maybe he shouldn't be doing that many spam blocks; I don't know the circumstances enough to say so. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Yep, it could be good to find a way to distribute this workload, and Vanamonde's idea might be better for that purpose. Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful, but would need to be workshopped to find a middle ground between a mark of shame and total invisibility. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      There's a potentially good idea in there somewhere. In at least one of the cases above I might have held off on a block if I could have flagged all their edits for closer scrutiny by patrollers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Novem Linguae: as the first technically minded admin I thought of, is this even within the realms of feasibility? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      watchlist this user's edits. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to WP:HOUNDING concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.
      Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful. A user script could be written that runs itself on pages such as recent changes, the watchlist, and article histories, and highlights edits by users that have been added to a wiki page containing a list of users to highlight. Or highlights edits by users who have been unblocked within the last month. So yeah, that's technically possible. WP:US/R is a good place to request user scripts if y'all decide to go that route. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

      watchlist this user's edits. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to WP:HOUNDING concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.

      Yep, which is why I thought limiting its availability to admins watchlisting users they personally unblocked could mitigate the WP:HOUNDING risks. Even more if it's limited to unblocks from the last, say, 30 days (although giving a specific timeframe might be an incentive for these editors to just wait it out, so a specific number of edits that will show up on the watchlist might be better).For your second point, a script could very much be feasible. I think there's a way to retrieve a user's logs by script to check the date of their last unblock, and from there it's just like an admin/etc. highlighter script. I might do it actually, if I find the time for it (and everyone, feel free to remind me if it looks like I'm forgetting!) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      For reference, see this old community wishlist entry. Graham87 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Examples: HJ Mitchell

    @HJ Mitchell:, per WP:ADMINACCT, can you please explain why you blocked User:Tanishksingh039 despite there being no edits between the warning they received for their first two edits, and your block a week later? Fram (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    HJMitchell addresses some thinking behind the block in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks, but the same happens with other editors as well. User:8neshebraWright8, warned on 11 December, one edit (not constructive but not problematic either) to their own user page the same day, suddenly blocked a week later? Nothing in the filter log, no deleted pages. If it was a sock, an indication in the block log would help. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    That one was reported to AIV (which is where most of my blocks come from) late last night. I misread the timestamps and hadn't realised they were a week old but didn't see anything to be gained by unblocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • User:Anushka Sweety Shetty: none of their edits after their one vandalism warning were reverted, they seemed like a good faith editor, but still you indef blocked them. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      That one came to AIV for triggering filters five times in five minutes. They were repeatedly blanking an article section by section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Except they weren't, after the warning they removed or merged sections once and then proceeded to add (at first glance acceptable) sources to the same article. They were a good faith editor trying to improve an article, probably making errors along the way. Fram (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      This is very bizarre. They're blocked for vandalism, yet not a single one of their edits has been reverted. @HJ Mitchell, could you please have another look at this block? – bradv 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Bradv (and anyone else interested) perhaps that one was a mistake. I've unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
      Thank you for your introspection and revert. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Why is this here and not on the user's talk page? If you have a concern with an individual user, as is the case here, you should first try to resolve your issues with the individual user. That's step one of dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      I agree. I think this whole section should be closed and discussion moved there.
      Somehow, I don't think that: "But we think our torches and pitchforks will be more effective here", is (or should be) a valid reason to skip steps in WP:DR in this case. - and that's about as much AGF as I think I can give in this instance. Regardless of initial intent, this is starting to come across as a kangaroo court. The appearance of which would seem to be undermining whatever goals that those concerned may have. - jc37 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      To those concerned, it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue. That is, in itself, a valid perspective. Class-borne exasperation is not itself collective discrimination or punishment.
      If you are implying this is shaping up to be a witch hunt, I have yet to see instances of magical thinking or confessions produced under torture. Instead, I see reasonable evidence for users' interrelated, reasonable concerns. Are people on WPO rude? Yes, and I see no bad faith in their incivility here. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Not seen as magical thinking or torture? Welcome to WP:AN : )
      And your comments do not address that this should have been - and should be - carried out on the admin's talk page, as Risker noted. - jc37 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Remsense's comment directly addressed that, e.g. it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue and interrelated, reasonable concerns. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Looks at the thread title ("Examples: HJ Mitchell"), and your and their comments. Uh huh, sure. Care to try again? - jc37 23:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Remsense's comment directly addressed whether this should be carried out on the admin's talk page, by using words such as not ... individualized and interrelated. Levivich (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Endorse most blocks; unblock Anushka Sweety Shetty. Procedurally, the OP should have discussed on talk with the user directly first; but setting that aside. For the first example, these are obviously low quality spam external links. All blocks are reversible given a block appeal. This is clearly bread and butter admin blocking and within discretion, and helps keep the quality of the encyclopedia high that we use discretion to quickly dispatch obvious troublemakers and spammers. The blocking policy is not a strict legal document, but a set of guidelines. The norms and practices should be followed, but not religiously. This seems like a good example where the logic is sound and where the action can be reversed easily if someone legit gets hit by a block, but it seems to me that this is just promotional spam. As to the second block, the account was evidently a vandalism-only account. We don't require warnings for this, AFAIK. Finally, I do think that Anushka Sweety Shetty was accidentally mis-tagged as vandalism, and should be unblocked unless there's a good reason that I don't understand. However, one mistake is not a big deal and can be easily reversed. Andre🚐 23:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Examples: 331dot

    @331dot: per Wp:ADMINACCT, can you please explain why you declined the unblock of good faith editor User:PaulSem? It seems that they needed guidance, not blocking in the first place, and certainly not a declined unblock with a rather unfriendly, unhelpful message. Fram (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what it was that was "unfriendly" about my message. I try to be matter of fact and succinct, perhaps that comes across as unfriendly, but I'm not trying to be. As the blocking admin said when they removed the block, "we don't link to sites that sell things". That's spam. I was looking for some understanding of that point. Perhaps I shouldn't have closed it, but we've had a massive backlog most of this year and I was trying to keep it down. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • "we don't link to sites that sell things" except that we do this all the time of course. This was very clearly a good faith editor (their last edit before the block was this), not some editor interested in adding spam. Your reply "You were posting blatant spam, the issue is not poor references." was clearly wrong, and the editor just needed an explanation of why something like this is not an acceptable source, even if it was added to be helpful and not as "blatant spam". Trying to keep down a backlog is not an excuse to deny good-faith editors their chance to edit and improve along the way because you don't have the time to actually look at what happened. Fram (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      If you're trying to offend me, it's working. I did look at what happened. Say you disagree, say I was wrong, fine. If you want the perfect admin, that's not me. But don't tell me I did things that I didn't do. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      So you looked at what happened, and still called this "blatant spam" and sufficient to decline an unblock? Then we are approaching WP:RECALL territory, as you seem to be having too many of these situations. I also linked above to User talk:Cryo Cavalry, who was incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry. I presume you looked into what happened when you declined the unblock with "I think that the reason for the block is correct. " or then continued to be extremely unhelpful by countering "If you could please check my edit history, you would see that I haven't done anything malicious." with "Your making edits is in and of itself malicious as you are evading blocks." They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment. Fram (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please tell me what the acceptable level of mistakes is so I know never to make too many. I never said anyone wasn't sincere. I didn't have access to all the information. You are assigning motives to me that I simply don't have and I don't know why you, a former admin, have it out for me. Merry Christmas. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      @331dot Please familiarize yourself with WP:BATTLEGROUND. 78.173.128.237 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      I am very familiar with it, thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      I wasn't rude. I categorically, totally, in the strongest terms, reject that claim. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Okay, let's leave the rudeness matter to the side for a while. Tone is hard to convey on the internet. Let's also not accuse other editors of having it out for anybody, because when in the history of Misplaced Pages has that ever gone well?Just to try and steer things back on course, @331dot, could you explain why you chose not to accept the unblock requests I posted a few days ago? And the others that Fram posted? I think understanding what your reasoning was when declining these unblocks, especially those of users such as Pbnjb1 and Cwootten13, will be useful for everybody. Mistakes are fine, but, and as an admin who monitors the unblock queue, you know this better than most, what other people want to see is genuine reflection and understanding. What went wrong in these, and what's going to happen differently next time? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'm sorry but it's hard to be told I'm doing things that I'm not doing.
      • 2023-11-03 The user said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices. I would like to continue editing Misplaced Pages and request to be unblocked." They said they hadn't reviewed policies yet, and they didn't say what edits they wished to make, both of which would indicate their understanding of the reasons for the block. Quite often people say they understand when they actually don't. Yes, blocks are cheap, but trying to avoid repeat blocks is good both for the appellant and us. Nothing nefarious, nothing rude. Happy to hear what specifically I should have done differently.
      • 2024-06-01 I said "If you lose track of which account you are using, you should stick to a single account." I didn't say it was an inappropriate use. They also incorrectly said a personal attack was made against them.
      I'm happy to discuss other things with you but I fear drawing this discussion out more than it already is. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Okay. Here we go.
      You selectively quoted Pbnjb1 there - which, I mean, I selectively quoted you so I can't get too mad. But they also wrote I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.
      They very obviously demonstrated that they understood the relevant policies and had read them. How much clearer did you want them to be....? Please, elaborate
      Additionally, I don't think anybody who has seen that block has understood why it was made, because we don't do instant 4im warnings and indefs for newbies adding redcats. I don't know why you've expecting a new user to have to have understood something seasoned admins and editors are scratching their heads over. I concur with you about repeat blocks- they're bad for everybody's moral. But accusing other users of not having read policies when they tell you information they could have only learnt by reading the policy? I don't know what to say here.
      For the next decline- you selectively quoted yourself. this makes it seem like you are multiple people. That's inappropriate use. You did accuse them of inappropriately using multiple accounts. Again, I don't know what to say. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Well, they said they read it and then said they didn't- what should I believe? A contradiction would suggest they didn't- but okay, I screwed up.
      I was trying to tell them why people thought they were using them inappropriately. I guess I failed at that. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      "then said they didn't" Please, back this up with a quote, because they didn't say they hadn't read the policies and guidelines. They said they would look at the Teahouse to get a better understanding. There was no contradiction. They demonstrated an understanding of the policies in the areas they'd been making mistakes in, and said they would ask for help in areas they didn't understand yet. But, because that was in the past, let's say you came across the exact same situation today. What would you do?
      I'll come back to the Cwooten13 block at a later date, just so we don't start spiraling off out of control. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      They said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices"- which would suggest they hadn't yet. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      ....no? A better understanding != hasn't read something yet. In fact, the use of the comparative adjective "better" implies that they did read it, and they did understand it. Maybe not completely, but very few people understand our policies and guidelines completely, and especially not when they are a bran-new editor.
      And you didn't answer my question. Let's say you see that exact same situation again. What would you do? 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I would unblock them. I think this was just a difference in wording interpretation- which I'm happy to correct when pointed out to me. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      So, an editor is incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry, protests his innocence, and you simply dismiss his protests without any indication why. They then point to their record of good contributions, and you again dismiss this completely and reassert that they were editing maliciously, but you weren't rude? "I didn't have access to all the information." In the first of these two blocks, you did have access to all the information, but still denied the unblock and called it blatant spam. In the second case, you didn't have all the information, but still proceeded to completely reject any possibility that the editor was right and summarily dismissed them. The issue is not "the acceptable level of mistakes" but what you do when those mistakes are pointed out. Fram (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I can't do anything about mistakes if you don't tell me what they are. I'm always willing to change and adjust. I've never denied this. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      ??? Seriously? Perhaps reread this whole discussion top to bottom, it lists enough of your mistakes. Or if that's too much to ask, just reread my messages from today. Fram (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I mean before now. "Hey, 331dot, just a friendly question asking why you did X thing when I noticed Y thing was the case". 331dot (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      So no actual reply to my post then. You claim to be willing to change and adjust, but give no indication that you understand what you did wrong. Fram (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      "They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment." I did, but unsurprisingly many socks deny being socks. Do I get that wrong sometimes? Yes. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      The editor involved (nor anyone else) had any indication that you took their unblock request and explanation in any way serious, you gave no explanation at all, leaving the editor rather desperate: "Please, could you explain to me how this conclusion has been reached?", no answer. Fram (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I have other things to do, and by the time I noticed that, someone else(a checkuser) had already engaged with them. I didn't want to pile on especially whem someone with more information was interacting with them. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      But it should never have come to that in the first place, if you had at the very least explained your reasons for not believing them at all in either your unblock decline or in your follow-up at the latest. Fram (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      This is actually quite illustrative. We have a situation where several people are telling you that you made mistakes and they're discussing what should be done. This seems to have come almost out of nowhere and you wish you had been given a heads up before it came to this. You're not sure exactly why it is that they're approaching things this way, and even though you're expressing that you're acting in good faith, it feels like there's nothing you can say that would satisfy them. If you're getting frustrated, that's an entirely understandable response and I don't blame you. Imagine the frustration when you're told that I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. doesn't cut it and your appeal is denied. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I see what you're trying to do here. I get it. You say it "doesn't cut it" but don't tell me why. I do tell people why or at least attempt to. We all see things differently and have different perspectives, so maybe I don't always succeed. But I try. I'm not the perfect admin certain people seem to want me to be. But turn it around and try to see what I'm saying. I'm not acting nefariously, I'm not a terrible person. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I don't believe you intend to cause harm. I've never done unblocking (obviously), and I imagine it's one of the more difficult admin tasks. My point is that there are parallels in terms of asking for assumptions of good faith, only that the newer editors don't always know how to express that. My suggestion, acknowledging again I've only been involved as an observer? Once a blocked editor tries to express good faith, the community as a whole should be more willing to help them express that. This is a ultimately a systematic problem. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I agree with that, but that means more discussion, not less, and this thread was created because of a perception that "several admins" were "just standing by interrogating a user". It's my personal opinion, from handling and watching these over the past couple months, that repeated, snap declines are much more harmful than these longer conversations. -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'll be blunt. I'm reading this and I fail to see why PaulSem was blocked in the first place. Even if he works for the site he linked (or a competitor), the reference is at least arguably useful. I'm not seeing "spam". @331dot: would you be so kind as to explain why this user was indef blocked/declined? What about his actions were "spam"? I hold no malice toward you and I don't think we've interacted prior. Buffs (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      Buffs They linked to a site that sells products; seemed like they were trying to drive traffic. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      OK.
      Here are his last 5 edits to non-user pages:
      1. What is the policy that bans links to sites that sell products? Last I heard we do that all the time, within reason. I'm unaware of a ban.
      2. How does linking to at least 6 different sites (all commercially independent) in the aforementioned edits "drive traffic"?
      3. Which one of these references violated the policy that you mentioned above and how does it possibly "drive traffic" When such inputs are to multiple sites? Sectionhiker.com appears to be an opinion page, but has useful information. While it's about commercial products it isn't pushing any of them in particular. REI is indeed a retailer, but they also publish articles about available products (sometimes even those that they don't have). Sciencedirect.com is a scientific article reference site. ukclimbing.com seems to be a site regarding climbing and its associated gear. Lastly the CDN link is a link to the actual international standards...literally the title of the article. Why WOULDN'T you want that link?
      4. How do links like this harm the encyclopedia? Even if they aren't the best possible links, they are MASSIVELY better than right?
      I'm completely confused as to the rationale you provided and how it applies here. Buffs (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please review the user's talk page. The initial notice said " The blog of a sales website like rei.com is not an appropriate source for Misplaced Pages". If that's not the case, well, okay. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'll give you that it's not the ideal reliable source, but it's also 100% correct. It isn't an uncurated blog. It's an official publication of a company that gives advice from professionals on how to enjoy the outdoor experience more. While we can find better sources, it's infinitely better than , wouldn't you agree?
      However, let's assume it isn't a viable source. Wouldn't it be easier to simply delete the link? I see no reasonable rationale for a indef block within 3 hours and with no further discussion? The only actions thereafter were to replace such sources. NONE of these were spam sites. In short, the rationale was inappropriate.
      Instead of correcting HJ as you should have, you agreed with him and upheld it. I don't really understand your rationale. Both your logic and HJ's do not appear to line up with the facts. Accordingly, you both share blame in this egregious miscarriage of your duties as admins.
      The fact that you agreed with this and seem to be doubling down on it is beyond perplexing. If you'd said "Ah, I see your point there. Yeah, I made a mistake. That was a step too far". Instead, you seem to be saying, "No, it was the correct thing to do. But if you guys think it was wrong, feel free to undo it." Correct me if I'm wrong here. Buffs (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Since this has devolved into focusing on single administrator's actions, I will ask that you either split this into a new discussion, move this to that admin's talk page, or collapse it as not to distract from what was supposed to be a broader discussion. Isabelle Belato 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I've turned it into subsections Fram (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      This discussion should probably be moved into relevant subsection. CNC (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • This makes me curious, probably a good fit for the idea lab for further workshopping, but would it be an interesting idea to have a board specifically for WP:ADMINACCT questions? From what I've seen, asking on the talk page of the editor or the admin themselves gives pretty low visibility to the question and often isn't conducive to further discussion, or sometimes to getting a clear answer at all, while something like AN or ANI might be too direct or accusatory for a simple question. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Perhaps the scope of WP:AARV could be expanded to include such questions? 331dot (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      It could be, although AARV carries the presumption that the action was incorrect and should be up to debate to endorse/overturn, rather than a centralized place to simply ask WP:ADMINACCT questions with more transparency than the admin's talk page (where things like WP:OWNTALK apply). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    It's difficult to see how other admins deal with unblock requests, as only open requests are easily findable. Looking at the open requests, I see User talk:TagKnife, which seems from what I can see onwiki a very weird block, but as it is based on an UTRS ticket I can't judge it completely. Still, if it was paid editing the block seems to have come 6 months after the fact, not at a time the paid editing was happening (if it ever happened), so why a block and not a warning/discussion? Fram (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Because it was a Terms of Use violation involving UPE. I cannot say any more without violating policy and documents that I have signed. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Were there other edits besides what is visible + the one deleted article? Fram (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't believe I can answer your question without violating policy. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, I don't really understand under what circumstances that could be true, but I guess I have to accept it. Fram (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Fram (and others), it is not a UTRS ticket, it is a WP:VRT ticket (presumably a WP:COIVRT ticket). People who are given access to the queue sign the ANPDP (which is the same NDA signed by editors with CUOS). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Fram I'm genuinely curious. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the ticket showed definitive evidence of UPE (because in my estimation as someone who can see the ticket, it did), do you think this is still a bad block in the way you have concerns about other spam blocks where the editor has stopped editing? I didn't become an admin to block people (I am a bit abashed I'm up to 175 blocks in my ~5 years as an admin) but I am closely following this discussion to get my own sense of community consensus about these matters. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the UPE is about the deleted article, then yes, I consider it a bad block. If there is more to it, which doesn't show up in the edits, log, and filter log, then it may of course be a perfectly acceptable block. But there is, as far as I know, no reason to automatically give an indef block for UPE instead of warning editors, certainly when like here they have made many other edits which seem uncontroversial, and when the paid editing is months in the past and not repeated after the article was deleted. Fram (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I looked at the ticket out of curiosity, and based on the evidence I would say that not only is it clearly UPE, it is clearly UPE from someone who knew it was not permitted and chose to engage in it (and later, pretend they hadn't). I think an indefinite block is entirely justified under the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93 and Fram: Is there some precedent that disclosure for paid editing is no longer required when the paid edits are deleted not by the paid editors request? If there isn't it seems to be an indefinite blocked is perfectly justified, noting that indefinite does not mean infinite. UPE is a ToU violation and so needs to be corrected before the editor contributes to building Misplaced Pages again. It doesn't matter if the editor was simply unaware of the ToU, until and unless they fix their ToU violation they're not welcome to edit here. They've been made aware of it now, and since they made paid edits, they need to disclose who paid them etc. Simply refraining from or even agreeing not to make any more undisclosed paid edits is not sufficient, although in any case a clear agreement should come before they're allowed back to editing. This does leave the open question of how we handle cases where paid editing is suspected but not considered conclusive. (P.S. I'm not convinced deletion at the editor's request is enough to correct UPE violations either. IMO the only remedy for UPE is indeed disclosure. Still it seems more complicated if an editor makes UPE, realises oh crap I should never have done that and asks for deletion of their paid edits so I won't debate that part.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm unaware of such precedent, but also everyone appears to be in agreement that this block was appropriate: we should move on. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    @331dot: it turns out you were perfectly correct with this block, and at the same time not allowed by policy to convincingly explain it, which must be frustrating. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to the others who took a look at this one. I'll not bother you about similar ticket-based blocks in the future, as it is clear that I can't independently assess them, the one example I used was a perfect block, and you may not explain it in any detail anyway. Fram (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you for this, I agree that the imperfect information landscape must have been frustrating all around and I applaud the good faith, patience, and understanding that the community has demonstrated on this issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    This was closed with the comment "Withdrawn by OP as explanation was deemed suitable. If anyone wants to harangue the multitudes, you may revert my close. Andre🚐 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)" but this is incorrect. While the second case was convincingly explained, the User talk:PaulSem case was not withdrawn and was a bad block and bad declined unblocked. Fram (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    "Early" closes at AfD

    The closing instructions at AfD currently says A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). I have noticed that several discussions each day are being closed early. Most of these are less than 30 minutes early but I have seen up to 2 hours early of their 7 days/168 hours. If articles are being closed as keep, I think that's arguably defensible and relisting early when it's obvious no consensus will be reached definitely makes sense, but I have a harder time with deletions. Truthfully, I don't understand the rush, especially as most (if not all - I've only spot checked this) are being done with XfDCloser which warns you if you're going early - that is these admins are making a conscious to close early. Since we're talking a handful minutes it likely doesn't make a difference in the outcome. But for me the instructions imply closing before 168 hours should be more a IAR situation rather than several discussions each day and multiple admins doing it. I thought I would bring it here for discussion to see if it's just me or if it bothers anyone else. And if it is just me maybe we adjust the instruction (or maybe I'm just making normally out to be a stronger prohibition than it's meant to be). I'm specifically not naming any of the admins or linking to any early closes as I'm not looking to get anyone "in trouble", just trying to see where the community stands, but obviously all of this can be observed by anyone else who wants to go through the day's closes at AfD. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Are there controversial closes being made like this, or 'straight up' all-keeps or all-deletes being closed a few hours early? If it's the latter, then I'd say it's no big. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'd agree with Bushranger here that if they're 'straight up' it probably doesn't overly matter. XfDCloser does warn for early closures but if they've been relisted once that behaviour does appear to break based on recent personal experience, as I realized last night and self-reverted an MfD close (as redirect) when I realized it was way too early following a relist to take action; got my dates mixed up in that instance and it was in the "old" section. TheSandDoctor 05:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I advise against closing even marginally early for a couple of reasons. From the perspective of establishing a robust consensus, I know that several regular participants begin with the oldest open discussions (I did this, when I was a frequent participant), and so closing early can sometimes prevent scrutiny that a nomination can usefully receive. From the perspective of making best use of the community's time, I would avoid making an early closure an additional reason to go to DRV. Even the most well-reasoned closures have a chance of ending up there, but ending an AfD a few minutes early offers no tangible benefit to compare with the tangible cost of a DRV (this is somewhat akin to why I discourage even experienced editors from making contentious NACs). Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @TheSandDoctor: I don't personally consider a closure "early" if it has already been relisted at least once. I would define early as "open less than 168 hours", not "open less than 168 hours since last relist. If the community sees this differently I'm happy to amend my approach. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agree with Vanamonde93 regarding relists - from my understanding, these can be closed at any time once consensus becomes apparent, as they will be over the 168-hour threshold (presumably). No need to wait for (168 x 2). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, TheSandDoctor, there's no requirement to wait another week following a relist; the whole point of that mechanism is to nurture a consensus so the discussion can be closed. Not kept open. SerialNumber54129 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Serial Number 54129, Vanamonde93, and Daniel: Thank you all for the insight on this. I've just always operated under the assumption/understanding that relists were for another full 7 day cycle as if the AfD was just (re-)posted. I'll adjust accordingly. Thank you! TheSandDoctor 00:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    To be clear the AfDs I'm discussing have not been relisted; they're being closed before 7 total days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) I was actually thinking of raising different modification: currently WP:AFD/AI actually indicates discussions should be closed after they have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old (which is 168 hours + rollover of UTC day), which definitely does not reflect practice. I would agree that pre-168 hour closure should probably only occur in exceptional circumstances, though I can't say I've really been keeping track of them so I wouldn't know if the current rate is above my expectations. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I haven't done formal math but based on having looked at this over 10 days of closes I'm guessing it hovers just under 10%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have been doing some afd closes and I have noticed this as well, probably done it a few times myself, when the result seemed unlikely to change. I usually start doing them less than two hours before midnight UTC though, which is three in the afternoon for me. El Beeblerino 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't recall you from the days I've sampled, but art of my thought here is that AfD seems more than adequately staffed at the moment. So what's the rush with any of these? Just let them play out for the full time and any of the many admin who are around can handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just popped in there, all but one from today was already closed. I could be imagining this, but it feels like since I started doing AFD closes again last month, the other regulars have started doing them even earlier. It also seems clear that some of them are watching them days ahead of time, while myself I prefer to come in clean and just read the debate, but that's perhaps just a matter of personal taste. I agree there's no real rush, there's plenty of other backlogs that actually need help. El Beeblerino 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, it tends to be only the kinda gross ones that end up on the /Old list. I've set myself a personal policy to not relist anything that hasn't made it to that page, but I'd also be pretty happy if we all agreed to only close AfDs after they ended up there. -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the issue is that WP:AFD/AI (To process an AFD debate listed on a day page containing debates old enough to be closed) implies something different than the explicit statement in WP:CLOSEAFD (A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)), then the two should be reconciled in some way.
    I don't think that there is an objectively better answer here, but the current practice appears to be closer to the language in WP:CLOSEAFD. Since, as WP:PAG notes, technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors, I think we may want to consider tentatively revising WP:AFD/AI pending future discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Except old enough links to WP:OLD and only things older than 168 hours appear on that page. So I'm not sure I agree they need reconciling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • As someone who has closed thousands of AFDs, I'll just say that closure times varies a lot over time (I'm talking years) and with different discussion closers. NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early, sometimes a full day or two early. I assume this is because they think a discussion looks like SNOW and they want to get the practice of closing AFDs. I regularly remind them to wait for 7 days to pass.
    And we have some admins, none of whom are currently closing AFD discussions, who consistently close up to 9 or 10 hours early. In the past, I have often left a user talk page note about these early closures and those notes usually result in changes in their behavior. Then, there is another phenomena at 23:00 UTC, there is often early closures of lingering AFD discussions that are due to end between 23:00-24:00 UTC. In general, I don't get concerned about AFD closures that are within an hour or two of the appropriate closure time but I do post notifications to closers who close AFDs half a day or days early. We have respected admins who are irregular closers who close a discussion as SNOW that doesn't seem like SNOW to me! I'll just say that while this phenomena might be getting attention right now, the situation is much better now that it was months or years ago. I also recommend that any chiding of closers is done as a general and gentle reminder to all admins, not singling out individuals as we always are short of closers and some of our worst early closers simply do not close AFDs any longer. That's my 2 cents as someone who spends a lot of time in this area.
    I'll also say that while I believe in the 7 day rule, we really get little discussion participation after the first two or three days, when discussions are first posted or right after a discussion has been relisted. We see little last minute activity in deletion discussions. That's my observation. Liz 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's what I've generally seen as well, although as you know I wasn't regularly doing them for quite a while until recently. I figure when it is the last hour for everything, it's probably ok to close slightly early unless you see a very recent post that makes a new point or points out sources not previously discussed. Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.

    For the record I appreciate your pointers to me when I started doing them again. The XFDcloser is a real game changer, which is probably why closes are being handled so quickly, but you do kinda need to know what you are doing with it.

    For those that may not know, the XFD closer does alert you when you are closing a discussion early and you have to affirm you are doing so deliberately. El Beeblerino 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time. I have to register strong disagreement with this statement. It's not my experience that most AFDs are closed hours ahead of time. I think that most closers are very respectful of the 7 day guideline and only close discussions early if it is SNOWING until we get to the 23:00 UTC hour. I think some closers, admins and NACs, have a SNOW bar that is too low (like 4 Keeps or 4 Deletes) but that is a subjective judgment on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. Liz 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree with the entire tenor of this discussion. An AfD should be closed when the outcome is clear. A WP:SNOW close is absolutely fine when the snow has fallen. An early close by a few hours is fine when, aside from outliers making weak arguments, there is overwhelming consensus for specific outcome that cannot realistically change in the course of the normal pattern of an AfD. BD2412 T 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, this seems like a good problem to have.
    Regarding, "NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early", I've closed discussions as clearly keep on the seventh calendar day, but an hour or more before the clock completely runs out, and don't see an issue with something like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wanda Toscanini Horowitz where there is discussion and only keep !votes. I've also had several times where I read through the discussion, wrote up the rationale, and came back a few minutes before the clock ran out only to find the discussion already closed early by another editor. Closing early (at least for me) is to avoid duplicating and wasting effort.
    A technical solution to make collaboration easier when closing would be appreciated. I have no idea how the XFDcloser gadget works, but I'm imagining some kind of way to flag an AfD discussion not as closed but as "being reviewed" or something like that. Rjj (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Rjjiii, I wasn't talking about all NACs or anyone specifically. I think it's just a tendency among NACs to be enthusiastic about closing or relisting discussions and so they can take action too soon sometimes. But NACs help out a lot and usually make accurate closures. IF I have issues with any editor, I bring it to their User talk page and they are almost always very responsive to criticism which, to me, is an essential trait on this platform. Liz 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Liz, gotcha, and I wasn't taking it in a personal way. I realize it can be hard to tell with just text. Rjj (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Quibbling about a few hours seems to be clearly against the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. If an the admin has time to process a batch of AfDs now but not in a couple of hours, it makes sense to do that rather than letting them sit. For many years WP:XFDCLOSER has also implicitly encouraged this but colouring such discussions yellow instead of red. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      The yellow is just for relists, as far as I can tell. An AfD that is about to hit 168 hours is still red. -- asilvering (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oh! I've always misunderstood that then. – Joe (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'll be the contrarian I guess. I understand WP:NOTBURO, but by the same token, if someone is fervently defending a keep of an article, especially if contentious, giving the full 7 days is not a bureaucratic move, but one of respect. People have taken their own time to create such media (articles, images, etc) and we should be respectful of their time and efforts before removing them, especially if done in good faith. One of the biggest problems we have is getting new people involved. There's no quicker way to get someone out than to delete all their work. All that said, yes, a WP:SNOW keep = ok to close early. The same would apply for a WP:SNOW no consensus. Some additional, generic clarifying guidelines for both Admins and users would probably go a long way. Buffs (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      Went ahead and went bold early: . Feel free to revert if you believe it is in error. Buffs (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      I completely agree with and endorse this outcome. I would assert that any WP:SNOW outcome can be closed once the snow has fallen, and that any discussion for which the outcome cannot reasonably be expected to change is in the same situation. If for example, you have a nomination for deletion that starts out with a handful of delete votes, and is followed by a flood of keep votes with well-reasoned bases in policy and evidence, particularly where the article is improved over the course of the discussion with the addition of sources demonstrating notability, then there is no reason to embarrass the subject any further with a deletion template. BD2412 T 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      Why should there be a different standard for deletion versus keeping? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      A valid question. When you are keeping someone's edits, effectively no action is taken; everything remains as-is. When you are deleting them, you are effectively saying not only should everyone's inputs be deleted, but that you are deleting every record of their efforts and they would have to start over; giving them the full 7 days to attempt to persuade others is a reasonable compromise and reflects courtesy towards their good faith contributions. YMMV. Buffs (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ranged weapon

    Copying done. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I think Talk:Ranged weapon should be preserved at the AfD's talk page, since it includes necessary context for the comment by Nurg (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Admins have access to look at the page history if needed; there's no rule we have to preserve any portion of a deleted article for generic public access, including its talk page. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've copied over the section in question; I'm not sure how necessary it is either, but it's a good-faith request and I'm happy to oblige. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page's name blacklisted

    Dear Administrators,

    I am writing to request the creation of a Misplaced Pages page titled nCircle - it is about BIM software. I see that pages with the term "nCircle" have been restricted due to past issues involving the now-deleted nCircle Entertainment page which is another entity. However, I would like to assure you that this proposed page is entirely unrelated to nCircle Entertainment and is a different subject entirely. Introducing a story (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    nCircle has been create-protected by the administrator Toddst1 since 2009. You should ask them how to proceed on their talk page at User talk:Toddst1. They will likely agree to lift the protection, especially if you can show them a draft article, which you can create at Draft:nCircle, that demonstrates that the topic is notable enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages (see WP:GNG) by citing independent reliable sources that treat the topic in depth. Sandstein 13:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Sandstein: Todd is no longer an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Bbb23, thanks for the notice. @Introducing a story, I can create nCircle through the title blacklist for you. Please ping me as soon as you have drafted the article, as described above, and I'll move it to main space. Sandstein 16:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Sandstein
    Hello, thank you for your advice. But unfortunately, I can't create Draft:nCircle either, because this page is also blocked from being created. What should I do in this case? Introducing a story (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Courtesy ping User:Ivanvector, who blacklisted. —Cryptic 19:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Introducing a story: Sorry for the trouble, I didn't think that the blacklist would also catch draftspace. Can you try creating the article at User:Introducing a story/Draft? Sandstein 11:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Sandstein, thanks for your advice. I have created the page User:Introducing a story/Draft. What are my next steps? Introducing a story (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Introducing a story, the next step would have been for me to move your draft to nCircle, overriding the blacklist. But in this case I decline to do so because I am not convinced that the draft establishes the notability of the topic. The sources cited appear to be of a superficial or promotional nature, leading me to question their reliability and/or independence, especially in view of the issue of paid news in India. You remain free to amend the draft with better sources (see WP:GNG for the criteria) and to ask for another review at WP:AFC. Sandstein 12:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Sandstein, okay, thank you for your advice, I will work on it. Can you tell me when you will remove the block for creating the nCircle Tech page? Because the current block is illogical and concerns a completely different company called Ncircle entertainment, which operates in a different industry. Introducing a story (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    You should discuss this with the admin who blacklisted the page, Ivanvector, on their talk page. There may be reasons to maintain the blacklisting, such as possibly ongoing spam by the other Ncircle. Sandstein 11:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Please remove my PCR flag

    Flag removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I haven't used it very much lately, and now have little need for it. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    philip ingram vs. phillip ingram

    This is not an administrative issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    one, philip born in Tyrone Ireland, phillip born in the US.philip:military specialist; phillip rocker. But in comments and wiki questions, both are completely mixed up! Why not check up on that, thanks! 80.217.14.114 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    We don't have an article for Philip Ingram. If there is content in Phillip Ingram that applies to a different person, just bring it up at Talk:Phillip Ingram. Schazjmd (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ISA99 Committee

    Soft-blocked for username violation and encouraged to edit using COI edit requests. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An account claiming to be the chairs of the ISA99 committee has made some edits recently. I have seen matters of professionals editing on Misplaced Pages handled very intentionally before, so I thought I would ask whether the team is in contact with Misplaced Pages admin, or if a qualified user could ensure their work has met Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Tule-hog (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User BubbleBabis

    I have noted my issues with the edits of a particular user by the name of User:BubbleBabis many times. This editor is a hoaxer, a plagiarizer, and has trouble making competent contributions to articles. They have frequently displayed their inability to provide real citations, added copyrighted content to articles, and do not attribute text they steal from other articles. I have noted a few of the many hoaxes they have added at Talk:Qasem Soleimani and Talk:Mohammad Reza Zahedi. They are often unable to edit in a neutral point of view and overall their work is detrimental to this wonderful website, its editors who always have to clean up after their work, and its readers.

    • Contains sentences stolen from Foreign support in the Bosnian War and not attributed
    • Adding off-topic information about Al Qaeda to other articles not concerning it
    • Adding other off-topic information
    • Adding clearly unreliable sources (spongobongo, pdfcoffee, dokumen.pub, etc.)
    • Misrepresentation of sources
    • Original research

    It is my hope for this not to continue. Aneirinn (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've noticed this in Ahmed al-Sharaa as well. we started talking about the issues on Talk:Ahmed_al-Sharaa#On the "Attacks" section after some further edits today. Looks like like to me some blantant NOR/BLP/synth problems, as well as using unreliable sources. Cononsense (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Pizermmmmmmm76486 and USERNOCAT

    Indefinitely blocked from userspace until they discuss the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Can an administrator take a look at Pizermmmmmmm76486 and their continued use of article categories in their username space on pages like User:Pizermmmmmmm76486/List of tallest buildings in Albany, New York? For some reason, they keep re-enabling these categories with edits such as this even though it been pointed out here and here on their user talk page that this isn't really good practice per WP:USERNOCAT. Similar enabling of categories has also been taking place at User:Pizermmmmmmm76486 and User:Pizermmmmmmm76486/List of tallest buildings in Colorado Springs, New York, though these have not been re-enabled as of yet. Pizermmmmmmm76486 just blanks their user talk page without responding to comments posted there, which is fine per WP:BLANKING, but makes it hard to figure out if there's something about USERNOCAT that they don't understand or don't agree with. A message posted here on their user talk about copy-pasting entire articles onto their user page was also blanked without response. It also might be a good idea to take a look at User:Pizermmmmmmm76486/Fuck ahah per WP:PROFANE. I totally get WP:NOTCENSORED and that this is a userspace draft, but it's hard to see how the "title" of the draft is related to the content of the draft; it also seems like it could possibly be mistaken to mean "Allah" or "Ahad". Pizermmmmmmm76486 has many userspace drafts they're currently working on, most without their categories enabled and most without more suitable titles; so, it seems they're familiar enough with relevant policies and guidelines to know what they are and how to work in accordance with them. FWIW, I asked an administrator named Bearcat to take a look at this here, but it's the end of the year and people get busy with other things. Since this isn't really urgent, I'm posting about it here instead of ANI. If, however, it's better off at ANI, please advise and I can move the discussion there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Redrose64 conduct at VPT

    Let's just say there is zero point to this. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I want to file a report on Redrose64 (talk · contribs) for their conduct at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#List-defined refs. Simply put: has this administrator acted improperly in their discussions with DuncanHill (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'd really rather not have anything to do with this editor or this thread. I have asked him to stop trying to help me. I regard this report as harassment. DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not every warning or comment that an admin makes is made with their admin hat on. This post is not harassment, but it was an unnecessary escalation in my view. Both of you should just walk away from each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't understand why an editor/admin is filing a report on AN about themselves. It seems pointy to me especially when the other editor refuses to have anything to do with this complaint. I recommend this just be closed. Liz 03:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Reporting oneself & then notifying oneself of that self-report on one's own talkpage? What??? GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft

    I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.

    It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.

    The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.

    I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.

    Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?

    Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?

    Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace ...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and WP:GNG. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF? Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think it makes sense to archive all threads in Talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. Yaris678 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Request for assistance with semi-protected page edit

    Hi, I’d like to suggest an update to the page A1 Srbija to include more accurate or additional information. Since the page is semi-protected, I’m unable to edit it myself. Could someone assist me with making the changes? What would be the next step? Thanks. Jelena Cvetković 1 (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Please use the edit request wizard to create an edit request, which will then be placed on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Jaspreetsingh6 unban request

    Clear consensus to unban with a one-account restriction. Welcome back. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The following is copied from User talk:Jaspreetsingh6#Unbanned on behalf of Jaspreetsingh6:

    I am requesting to be unbanned. I was banned for repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages's guidelines even after receiving warnings from admins, and I will not make any excuses for that because it's entirely my fault. I shouldn't have violated Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry and should not have created new accounts again and again to evade blocks, misleads other editors, avoid sanctions, etc. If I get unblocked, I promise you I won't create new accounts and will only use this one

    Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Support unban. The difference between being 16 and 18 is huge. Jaspreetsingh6 said on their talk page when I look back at my past behavior, I feel very embarrassed. I think it's worth giving them a shot at proving that they've changed. Jaspreetsingh6 also seems to have improved their English. Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Support per WP:SO and @Schazjmd. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Support after reading their talk page and seeing the evolution in language and maturity. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Support per above. Seems like a reasonable request . JayCubby 01:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Support. Unblock request is refreshingly honest and to-the-point. —Compassionate727  01:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Support This sort of situation is what the standard offer was created for, thanks for bringing it here. El Beeblerino 02:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere – This is not an issue of general interest to administrators. Maybe try the teahouse El Beeblerino 02:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    What article would the term "WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT" fall into? Because in my opinion it could be classified as disruptive editing, but also the same spot as the term "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". GojiraFan1954 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    What does this have to do with this noticeboard?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article

    VENUE CORRECTED Now at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra, I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - Herodyswaroop (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    You should report this at WP:COIN. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Gave the purported director a COI welcome template. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for Deletion of My User and Talk Pages Due to Personal Attacks and Mismanagement

    Bye.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

    Aliazizov (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Aliazizov They have no contents, thus your request needs clarification. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Aliazizov: Administrators here have zero authority on az.wp; you need to make the request at az.wp's equivalent of this page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 09:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for Complete Deletion of My User and Talk Pages

    Question addressed. Liz 19:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dear Administrators,

    I am writing to formally request the complete deletion of my user and talk pages on Misplaced Pages. This request is based on recent personal attacks and accusations directed at me, which have created a hostile environment and made it impossible for me to continue contributing to this platform.

    Given the circumstances, I no longer wish to remain active on Misplaced Pages and would appreciate it if my user and talk pages are deleted entirely to prevent further misuse or misinterpretation.

    Thank you for your understanding and support. Please let me know if further clarification is needed.

    Best regards,Cavidnuri44 Cavidnuri44 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Based on your signature, you don't have anything on your user or user talk pages.
    What you are asking for is a vanishing, see WP:VANISH. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    You don't have any edits other than this one- did you create this account for the purpose of making this request? 331dot (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I created this account solely to request the complete deletion of my user account and talk pages from the platform Cavidnuri44 (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    You'll need to tell us what your original account is in order for us to do that- you can do that as WP:VANISH describes.
    We can address personal attacks against you if you identify your account. We want everyone to feel safe and comfortable here. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I will say user talk pages are not normally deleted. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Given Cavidnuri44 also has edits primarily on az.wp just like Aliazizov above, I'm going to assume this is the same person as them, and give them the same advice I have above. @Cavidnuri44: Administrators on the English-language Misplaced Pages can't do anything with regard to the Azeri Misplaced Pages. You need to request this on the Azeri Misplaced Pages's equivalent of this page; requests here on en.wp are a waste of time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 10:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Noting the user has been WP:VANISHed -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think these requests are a waste of time. Given their frequency, apparently many editors don't understand that Misplaced Pages projects are separate domains. The editor had a question and it was answered, how else would they know? We might get tired of answering questions like this one but we don't have a FAQ for this page and since this noticeboard is intended to be a way to communicate with admins, it seems like it is serving that purpose. Just because the regulars get tired of answering the same questions doesn't mean we can expect new editors here to already know the answers to them. Liz 19:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unclear policy

    Asked and answered. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    If an RfC about policy -- i.e., things that one is and is not allowed to do -- was closed with no consensus, but the current state of policy is contradictory (as in, existing policies contradict one another, or more specifically policies contradict guidelines), what is the path forward? I would really like there to be a hard ruling one way or the other, because I am receiving feedback that implies that I would be breaking the rules somehow for following policy that exists.

    For disclosure this is about this RFC on reverting vandalism to talk page archives, and this follow-up, about the more than 2,200 instances of undetected vandalism that people are telling me I am not allowed to revert, citing a consensus that does not actually exist. I cannot emphasize how absolutely wild it is that there is controversy over whether one is allowed to revert vandalism and that people are actually angry at me for trying to revert vandalism, which is something existing policy actually tells you, explicitly, to do!, and I was under the impression that policy trumps guidelines, in general. But here we are.

    I apologize for the repeated questions about this but I am very frustrated about this, and existing methods of trying to come to some kind of clarity about what our policy actually is have not proven fruitful. It feels like a dispute resolution issue -- there are certain individuals who are giving me more grief about this than others -- but I don't really know the right venue for that, nothing is obvious. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm curious as to the source of your interest in archives that the vast majority of readers and editors are unlikely to see. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    The source of my interest is that I think vandalism is bad. I don't have a particular interest in archives; they're just what's left now since I've already done the same kind of sweeps for the obvious undetected vandalism in articlespace, Wikidata, Commons, etc.
    This isn't just my opinion, it's Misplaced Pages policy. It's one of the most fundamental policies we have, just short of WP:5P (you know, the one that says "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited"). It's also more than a little contradictory to claim that archives are not important, yet simultaneously so important that there are harsher restrictions on editing them than almost anything else on the project. We have a way of indicating things shouldn't be edited, it's called protecting the page (which is also policy). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    That doesn't really answer my question; I understand the desire to work against vandalism, but shouldn't you be concentrating on pages that are more visible? We're also not talking about vandalism caught in the moment(i.e. by watching the Recent Changes feed). I'm (and I think others) just wonder if you think that's really the best use of your volunteer time.
    There are reasons to not routinely protect archives; bots or humans fixing links, for example. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I may not be understanding the problem but if an editor has vandalized an archived page, it's completely okay to revert that edit. But if an editor has vandalized a regular page and that page THEN gets archived, it should be left alone. But we have vandals causing mischief to, say, ANI archives and their edits are just reverted if they are discovered. Liz 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? GiantSnowman 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
      I assume vandalism to archives is rare, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to edit them. —Compassionate727  19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think you should move this complaint to WP:ANI. You will get better response there. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think Liz's comments are spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    "More" response is not always a better response. And I think we addressed Gnomingstuff's question, as much as I understood what they were asking about. It was pretty vague. Liz 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued subject of a sockpuppet investigation, and request for neutral third party intervention

    I am posting this here because I need advice. A couple of weeks ago I was involved in an edit dispute on a contentious topic page, I noticed that an editor had made a serious of edits which seemed to me to be clear violations of NPOV. This was a very senior and experienced editor. I left a message on their talk page regarding it, I was not aggressive or unreasonable. A week later a sockpuppet investigation was initiated by that user into me, claiming that I have sockpuppet accounts, to accounts I have never heard of. They also claimed that I was being aggressive. Despite it initially being set to close by a checkuser, it was re-opened when 'new evidence' was given by the aforementioned user, making claims such as that my 'excessive use of commas' is similar to the other users, and other claims which I see are very much as 'looking for things to find'. Since, other editors have joined the investigation, these users all have edit histories which focus almost entirely on the aforementioned contentious topic area. I feel that all it will take is a rogue admin who also shares the POV (with regard to the contentious topic) and I will be unjustly blocked or somesuch. I am very anxious about this because I have put a lot of work into wikipedia since joining a few weeks ago, and I feel like these editors are targetting me. Is it reasonble of me to ask that there be some guarantee here that the admins, checkusers, and such, who oversee my investigation have a mostly unrelated to this contentious topic area editing interest? I will divulge the details if so, I just want to keep this as brief as possible while I broach this question. Many many thanks 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Hello, Terrainman,
    I have a couple of thoughts. First, just chill. Many editors are accused of being sockpuppets, I know I was accused of being a sockpuppet when I first started editing. Your talk about a "rogue admin who shares a POV" is assuming bad faith, especially since the first checkuser who commented cleared you of being a sockpuppet.
    Yes, filing this SPI was probably unnecessary but Icewhiz has been a prolific sockmaster so some longtime editors working in certain subject areas are often trying to identify potential Icewhiz socks they might have created. I'm sure that this report is unnerving to you but it sounds like this event has sent you down a rabbithole that leads you to believe that there is some conspiracy against you. If I were you, I'd a) stop attacking the editor who filed the report, b) stop commenting on the SPI entirely and c) trust that our checkusers know what they are doing and if they find no evidence (which they haven't), they will freely state that there is no connection between editors.
    Also, in case you decide to stay as a regular editor, know that it is important how you "correct" other editors, especially ones that are much more experienced than you. This doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes but you called the other editor's edits "vandalism" and implied they had some sort of bias. Other editors criticized your comments to them. When other editors come to the defense of an editor being accused of misconduct, you should question whether or not your perception was correct and, if it wasn't, you should apologize. Consider that maybe you were being "unreasonable" and be more tactful and less accusatory when you bring up another editor's editing on their User talk page. This is just my 2 cents. Make that 25 cents. Liz 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi. First of all thank-you very much for your reply. I am and have been considerably stressed about this. Being accused so zealously of something which I am totally innocent of is a really nasty feeling. When I was referring to a 'rogue admin', to clarify I mean hypothetically, I am worried about this happening; there is no admin I have in mind. I definitely have not assumed good faith of the editor who initiated the investigation, since it seems so obvious to me that this is a targeted act. I understand how that might sound unreasonable, but it is how they have worded things, being so sure of themselves that I am guilty, and how they have drawn these absurd points of evidence and stated them as if they are damning. I'm sorry but I can't help but be a little emotional about it, my gut tells me that it is targeted so I did not assume good faith. I will stop commenting on the SPI, and take a big step back. I have said all that I wanted to say now anyway. I trust the checkusers, its just the 'new evidence' that really irked me, and I felt that I needed to reach out to someone about it, especially since most of the other editors who have commented on the SPI have the editing history I mentioned - but this is the point which I, as you mention, should in particular hold back on as it is accusative to the editors. Again, I will take a big step back and let the checkusers handle it. Thank-you again for taking the time to reply 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Humans sharing accounts with machines

    My apologies, as I'm certain this has already been addressed and I've neglected to keep-up with the latest.
    If a human ("Editor ABC") is writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by process of cognition, but is also writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by an LLM (as opposed to merely machine-translating thoughts which originated in their own mind), are we inclined to view this as a violation of our WP:SHAREDACCOUNT policy in that both the human and the LLM are contributing using the same account? Or is the dependence of the LLM on the human to actually post its output to the Talk page sufficient to overcome any concerns about sharing? Chetsford (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    There have been several discussions about LLMs, but I don't remember this specific issue being addressed. I would say, as I think about just about everything, that if the editor is upfront and transparent about what they are doing then most things should be allowed, but that if the editor tries to hide things or is sneaky and underhand in any way they should be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I know there has been a lot of talk but I don't recall anything regarding what you specifically asked. If I understand you correctly anyways... If both talk page posts are coming from the same logged in user and is signed as such, I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between what I actually say versus what an LLM spits out as a response to a prompt generated by that same user. However, that user would be held accountable for both their direct statements, as well as those generated through a LLM, and there is no real excuse that "I didn't mean that" when they posted it, regardless of how the actual text/words were generated. I guess the other way LLM could be used is say to take someone else's post/reply and feed that into an LLM and ask the LLM to generate a response. But again, not sure how big of an issue that is, as long as they're both being attributed to the same person behind the post. They just cannot use some sort of shared account principle as a defense. TiggerJay (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'd put it this way. If someone is just posting content randomly generated by LLMs, I don't think we need to worry about SHAREDACCOUNT to block them. If someone is asking a LLM to generate something and than posting the output, it's silly to claim that the LLM is somehow 'sharing' the account. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wouldn't this essentially grant a form of personhood to AI models, something they don't quite deserve yet? I doubt that a dependence on the human to post output is going to be a constraint for much longer. Also, in practice I'm not sure it is going to be possible to distinguish between Editor ABC and augmented-human Editor ABC. I can't even do that with my own stuff where I've noticed that I conveniently forget that it was the GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet copilot that came up with a better solution than me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    43.249.196.179 (again)

    See their previous thread here, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Augmented Seventh. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to gravedance on my page after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto disrupting user sandboxes and user pages by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
    I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Adressing that final point, I have made a proposal about Category:Wikipedians to either remove the container banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. Tule-hog (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also WP:BOLD. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing this warning at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary here, they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to guidelines and talk things out, instead of ignoring advice given previously and edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Personal attacks by User:Remsense

    The OP needs to let go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I was instructed to report this here.

    The editor in question: Remsense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Claiming a user "can't read": . Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
    • Calling a user a "scoundrel": . Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
    • Telling a user "get the hell off my page" for leaving a mandatory notification: . Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY.
    • Claiming a user is "baiting" for seeking enforcement of a 3RR violation . Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH.

    2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Per the helpfully linked diff, I'm not going to be further baited by this person. In disputes like this one I've behaved too cattily for my own liking after being dragged to ANI and the like, and I'd prefer to turn over a new leaf in 2025. If anyone else has questions, let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    @2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C30: You have wasted too much community time. After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here. If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. Discuss disagreements about article content at article talk pages per WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    (For the record, I will not be participating in any WP:DR process pertaining to this. I am not interested in correcting the errors introduced to the page at the moment, and trust other editors to competently follow our content guidelines.) Remsense ‥ 论 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    You were not instructed to report this here. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    IP, just drop the stick. Please stop trying to get Remsense sanctioned. It's just gonna get you blocked per WP:BOOMERANG, as you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs. I concur with Phil Bridger. Codename AD 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Johnuniq: After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here. What does that diff have to do with anything? My complaint at WP:AN/3 was about Remsense's 3RR violation. My complaint here is about their personal attacks. I was directed to report that here.

    If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. For pursuing enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies? What kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is that?

    @Phil Bridger: You were not instructed to report this here. Yes I was. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". And the antecedent of that "if" is satisfied, as the above diffs show.

    @Codename AD: DROPTHESTICK The last retort of someone who knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy.

    you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs Yes, I have. How many more examples of Remsense's misconduct do you need? Give a number. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:3948:C64E:1D08:FB61 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    With this blatant administrator abuse and corruption, it's no wonder Misplaced Pages is perceived as a joke by the public nowadays. Circling the wagons to shield a user from rule enforcement and cover for each other's admin abuse.

    Why do you have such a strong interest in protecting Remsense from Misplaced Pages's rules? Is Remsense part of your "clique"? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:3948:C64E:1D08:FB61 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Happy New Year!

    Happy New Year to all editors on this project! Liz 00:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Happy New Year to the administrators of the English Misplaced Pages! Here's to a vandal-free 2025. Well, as vandal-free as y'all can get without having no more work left to do. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Happy New Year to the whole English Misplaced Pages community! Ahri Boy (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. And Happy New Year to the non-admin watchers here too. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The most I can muster, to all editors, is after 2024, I hope all of your 2025s are better than you expect them to be! Liz 04:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025

    At their request, the CheckUser access of Ferret is removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks them for their service.

    On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025

    RM completion request

    Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please carry out the moves at Talk:Minsk District. I was attempting to close it, but got rate-limited because of the sheer number of pages in question. JJPMaster (she/they) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Doing... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    And done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    File:L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat, Complete.webm

    Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hi, This is now in the public domain in France, but I can't move this file to Commons because the first version is hidden. Please help. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yann, I've deleted the hidden revision, you should be able to move it now. — Masem (t) 14:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    an obstacle to translation

    This does not require administrator intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I was going to translate the article 2022 Wikimedia Foundation actions on the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias into Persian. While translating, I noticed that the title of the article and some of its content about the Persian Misplaced Pages were not cited. I contacted the author (user:Ahri Boy)of the article but have not received a satisfactory answer yet. Please look into the matter. Arbabi second (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

    @Dreameditsbrooklyn and to a lesser extent @Aviationwikiflight have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as these diffs at me, this diff at AWF, and this diff at User:Awdqmb. Is this actionable? guninvalid (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety I am stating a fact. and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    "...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days". You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate on which aspect of this you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
    But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:MOS says: If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.
    WP:AT, which follows MOS says: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. ... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated Airliner crash, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Request removal of PMR/Rollback

    Flags removed JJPMaster (she/they) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. Regards, Aafi 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

    After reverting multiple edits that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @FMSky posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: "Put your trash analyses in the appropriate section(s) and stop flooding the lead with citations.". 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, why haven't you done that? --FMSky (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Article in question is a contentious topic x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --FMSky (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see this edit from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user FederalElection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as 62.74.35.238 now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. WaggersTALK 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Appeal of topic ban from 2018

    There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to Donald Trump due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is here. In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at WP:ITNC where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to Alex Shih who implemented the topic ban in the first place . Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more WP:AGF. RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Endorse lifting TBAN per above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Endorse removal of topic ban. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Endorse removal of topic ban per Misplaced Pages:One last chance. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

    Given this, it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:

    Evidence

    1. Diff 1 – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions.

    2. Diff 2 – In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.

    3. Diff 3 – In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.

    4. Diff 4 - After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated Moliere Dimanche for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the Prison Litigation Reform Act. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.

    5. Diff 5 - The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to Dimanche v. Brown and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, Roe v. Wade was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since Dimanche v. Brown was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.

    Spiralwidget (talk) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.

    6. List affected articles: Moliere Dimanche, Dimanche v. Brown, etc.

    Context

    - This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today. - I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.

    I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.

    NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in WP:Vandalism. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our policies and guidelines before resuming editing. Donald Albury 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
    • I was reviewing articles on WP:AFC back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon Draft: Moe Dimanche, which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with WP:ARTIST, which was the main claim of notability).
    • Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
    • I then commented on User talk:NovembersHeartbeat because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark Draft:Moe Dimanche on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
    • On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that Draft:Moe Dimanche had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have WP:COI concerns and I don't think he passes WP:GNG) and also nominate Dimanche v. Brown, which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
    • In addition, I would like to question whether there is WP:COI going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in WP:SOCK... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? Spiralwidget (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? 74.254.224.67 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The exact text from the source is

    "And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."

    The source says exactly what you just quoted. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. 74.254.224.67 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of WP:OUCH going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. WaggersTALK 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like " is vandalizing my pages" (emphasis added). @NovembersHeartbeat:, I would strongly advise that you read WP:OWN, WP:BRD, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:ANYONE. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to strike such remarks as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but may be to your own detriment. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. Buffs (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

    Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI EvergreenFir (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I have been working on the article Fender Stratocaster with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. FlightTime took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December and reverted four edits, without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had a conversation about it, and they reverted themselves. At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.

    However, today, they reverted 17 edits of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.

    Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.

    2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean without any explanation as his edit summary clearly documents his reason as Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: Talk:Fender Stratocaster or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at User talk:FlightTime and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. TiggerJay (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Emoji redirect

    👌 - The Bushranger One ping only 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Was trying to create 👌 (film) as a redirect to Super (2010 Indian film); the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the Vitarka Mudrā aka the OK gesture. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban appeal

    Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. DesertInfo (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

    Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! GD234 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like Camden Stewart or Camden Music. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" GD234 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    @GD234: I have moved the article to draftspace at Draft:Camdenmusique. If you have a conflict of interest with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are interested in ensuring that the article is indexed on Google and you uploaded his professional headshot), you must declare it following these instructions. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at articles for creation. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your feedback! GD234 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Andra Febrian report

    "Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many edit wars. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has: - caused many edit wars
    - deleted citations along with deleting correct claims
    - not been cooperative (wikipedia's Editing policy) on many pages that good-intended edits have occurred on
    - not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset.
    I request that the user is warned. HiLux duck

    First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

    There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of WP:GS/AA at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) § Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Cannot draftify page

    I tried to draftify Wuliangbao_Pagoda but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done @TheTechie: Draft:Wuliangbao Pagoda has been deleted. — xaosflux 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category: